Slashdot Mirror


Another Plane Down in New York

Another plane has crashed, this time in Queens. You can read a blurb at Yahoo. CNN.com isn't responding for me. LaGuardia, Newark and JFK are closed now. Update: 11/12 14:54 GMT by T : New reports indicate that the plane was departing from JFK, not arriving. Also, CNN has confirmed that this was American Airlines flight 587, an Airbus A 300. Update: 11/12 14:57 GMT by T : Further information is that the plane was en route to the Dominican Republic, and that the disaster actually involves two crash sites, not just one -- an engine fell from the plane some distance from the fuselage.

1,113 comments

  1. unbelievable by mvw · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Hope this is not another one.

    1. Re:unbelievable by Empty_One · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As bad as this sounds, I hope it's just that the plane and mechanical problems.

    2. Re:unbelievable by zyklone · · Score: 2

      They do go down by themselves now and then after all...
      But this is what .. the seventh one down in the last few months..

    3. Re:unbelievable by Jburkholder · · Score: 2

      Yeah, from the sketchy reports so far, it doesn't look much like a terrorist hijacking.

      This plane was apparently inbound to JFK, 5 miles out. Previous hijackings were departing west coast-bound jets.

      ABC radio is saying this was an Airbus, not a Boeing.

      As usual, this soon afterwards it is a lot of rumor, speculation and semi-reliable live news broadcast reports.

    4. Re:unbelievable by mvw · · Score: 1

      The earlier news today was that the northern alliance forces are only hours away from arriving at the capital Kabul.
      So I wonder if there is a connection.

    5. Re:unbelievable by jmauro · · Score: 2

      There is probably a greater connection to this story out of Nepal then the stories comming out of Afganistan. At least for the former story they both involved planes and crashes of planes. The connection is therefor obvious.

    6. Re:unbelievable by gorilla · · Score: 2

      Your logic is totally faulty. Terrorists are going to vary their attack profiles, because they know that after an incident, security on that profile will be intensified.

    7. Re:unbelievable by czardonic · · Score: 1

      That would hardly be reassuring, would it? It is well known that in spite of the increased security propaganda, it remains relatively easy to sneak explosives aboard a commercial jet. Best guesses are that about 5% of checked luggage is screened.

      Maintenance, on the other hand, is still supposed to be impeccable. If this plane went down due to mechanical failure, that is yet another catastrophic vulnerability uncovered.

      --
      Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
    8. Re:unbelievable by dinotrac · · Score: 2

      I'm having a great deal of trouble coming to grips with the reality that hundreds of people killed on the plane and on the ground by a mechanical problem, strange air or pilot error could be, in a strange way, good news.

      How much things change.

      Now comes the hard part: waiting for an answer.
      Remember the frenzy after Pan-Am 800? We even had a former presidential press secretary proclaiming that it had been shot down by a missile.

      Only a long and painstaking investigation revealed the problem with sparks in the central fuel tank on 747's.

      Just as I hope that Congress doesn't go ballistic passing oppressive laws for our protection, I hope that the NTSB will act only as quickly as a proper investigation will allow.

      The stakes are so high now.

    9. Re:unbelievable by Grizelmac · · Score: 0

      Yes it is very hard.

      As a note, and as someone who lost a dear friend on flight 800, I must note that it was TWA and not Pan-Am.

      May he rest in peace.

      --
      Your Technology General Contractor http://www.birddogdigital.com
    10. Re:unbelievable by geekrebel · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's really sad that we are actually praying it was an accident. Usually we hope that no one has died.

      --
      El Diablo, the Twisted One
    11. Re:unbelievable by dinotrac · · Score: 2

      Thank you for the correction.

    12. Re:unbelievable by nil_null · · Score: 1

      It would trouble me either way. We don't need the airlines doing the terrorists' work for them. If it isn't a terrorist incident, people are going to blame the airlines industry for this -- "have they cut so many jobs and paid so much attention to security that they neglected mechanical safety?". If it is a terrorist incident, they have yet another area of concern. Either way, less people are going to fly.

    13. Re:unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cause of the downed aircraft was most likely
      a surface to air missle. There is no way to
      prevent a van from stopping, shooting a missle
      and driving away...

      The administration does not acknowledge this
      reality because there is no way such attacks
      can be prevented. Any flight can be shot down
      and nothing can prevent future incidents.

      If people knew their flight may be shot down,
      noone is going to fly. Terrorism wins.

    14. Re:unbelievable by amunet · · Score: 1

      Yes and it looks like this one just went down by itself. The pilot dumped the fuel just moments before the crash.

      I don't think we should count the 4 that were crashes due to terrorism as part of the 7. That leaves 3 and in a year that is almost over, although lives were lost, is not really that bad.

      This has however, been a trying and very unusual year.

  2. pic @ skynews by gavlil · · Score: 0, Redundant

    picture

    --

    Do Unto Others As You Would Have Others Do Unto You - ONLY HARDER!
    1. Re:pic @ skynews by gavlil · · Score: 4, Redundant

      sorry here http://www.skynews.co.uk/skynews/storytemplate/sto rytoppic/0,,30000-1035003,00.html

      --

      Do Unto Others As You Would Have Others Do Unto You - ONLY HARDER!
  3. type unknown by ProfKyne · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It's a 767

    --
    "First you gotta do the truffle shuffle."
    1. Re:type unknown by Eusebo · · Score: 1

      NPR is saying it might be a Airbus A3 - there is not as of yet confirmation from the airline that owned the plane.

      --
      It is quite simple
      Haiku should not be funny
      Try a Senryu
    2. Re:type unknown by Croaker · · Score: 2, Redundant

      Nope, now it's an Airbus.

      Don't ay any attention to anything until the end of the day on something like this. No one really knows anything, and the newspeople need to have something to say...

    3. Re:type unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Actually, NBC was just reporting that it was an airbus, 850(I think), on it's way to the Dominican Republic.

    4. Re:type unknown by Kool+Moe · · Score: 1

      9-11, 11-12, so what's the pool for the next one?
      1-14? 2-13? Taking bets...
      Wait, is that sick?
      Normalcy returns!
      KM

      --
      Kinda like Moe, but just a little more Kool
    5. Re:type unknown by xdangavinx · · Score: 1

      this could quite possibly be because we're dealing with such sensitive information -- no one wants to create a state of panic.

  4. Unknown by dbarclay10 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just to let you all know - as off press time for this posting, nobody knows whether this was an accident, or another terrorist attack.

    Let's not jump to conclusions.

    --

    Barclay family motto:
    Aut agere aut mori.
    (Either action or death.)
    1. Re:Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      damn those sneaky arabs eh?
      more likely that the "war effort" was getting unpopular abroad, and losing support after ol' monkey boy in chief said the states would use nukes. and still nobody seems to have seen this wonderfully damning evidence. solution? feds drop another plane, fire up that xenophobia!

    2. Re:Unknown by herwin · · Score: 1

      Agreed. The current word in the media is that it wasn't a terrorist attack, but I'm worried about it having been a Stinger missile or an explosive device. I don't know what to suggest as countermeasures for either, but I suspect federalizing airport security is an idea whose time has come, despite the political dogfight currently going on in Washington.

    3. Re:Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      america is responsible for so many more innocent deaths than any other nation since WW2. you give it out, but you can't take it. sorry, pathetic, whinging, unaware children.

    4. Re:Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't agree with Federalizing Airport Security as it reduces the accountability of the agents and the agency in charge. I've worked for government agencies and the employees don't have much to fear in the way of termination, so they do the bare minimum needed to get the job done. Hell, my boss doesn't even show up to work half the time and still gets paid as if he was there all 40 hours.

      I think what needs to happen is tighter enforcement on standards that the Airports need to meet for security and hold them accountable if they fail to do so.

    5. Re:Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he didnt. Even a muppet can see that `news` was faked. use your brain...oh, i see the problem now.

    6. Re:Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, doesn't he know that Slashdot is for 15-year olds and younger?

    7. Re:Unknown by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 0, Troll

      YES, OSAMA needs to be dealt with harshly, NOT ever Muslim we can find. What the hell are you thinking? The attacks on us by the EXTREMISTS are aimed indiscriminately at all Americans. Going out and arresting and attacking all Muslims would be exactly THE SAME THING THEY ARE DOING TO US. We CAN NOT, we MUST NOT loose all sense of human decency and the Constitution of the United States. Al Qaeda needs to be brought to justice for attacking us, The Taliban needs to be brought to justice for harboring al Qaeda, but NOT Afghanistan, NOT the entire Muslim world. Don't loose your humanity.

      --

      Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    8. Re:Unknown by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'm a geek, and I give a fuck about plane crashes. This is an issue that all people should be concerned about. Not because it is a personal threat, but because it is a threat to all of society. Think about it, if the terrorist succeed, and the Taliban takes over the world, do you think open source is going to fair well? Slashdot will be gone, because it allows free discussion like this thread.

      --

      Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    9. Re:Unknown by Kamel+Jockey · · Score: 1, Troll

      Afghanistan is lucky that Bush is such a nice guy... we're the only people who care enough to feed the poor Afghani people who are ALSO victims of state sponsored terrorism. If Bush had just followed the opinion polls, he'd have nuked Afghanistan into a lake on Sept. 11 right after the towers fell (which we all know would be a truly horrible thing).

      --
      In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
    10. Re:Unknown by egreB · · Score: 0, Troll

      I couldn't agree more. For those interested, please check out http://www.trivini.com/20010911.html, wich a friend of mine wrote.

      Please, America, use your head instead of your force.

      -B

    11. Re:Unknown by snol · · Score: 0

      Yes, he's SUCH a nice guy, providing 1 million (definitely less than that, too lazy to look up actual number) *meals* dropped by air onto minefields to feed the ~7 million people who will be starving all winter. That'll do em a lot of good. No, that move was one for the polls.

      ~7 million * ~100 days of winter = 7x10^8 >> ~1x10^6. They'll be feeding on the order of 0.1% or less of the people who need to be fed, or maybe feeding 3% of the starving people 3% of the food they need. Meanwhile, the bombing drives out UN services which might have actually done some good and destroys 2 Red Cross centers and a UN mine cleanup facility. Yes, we're doing the Afghani people a huge service by declaring war on them. This is still only considering civilian losses; probably no one will even bother to count military deaths, not that most of us Americans care.

      Anyway, I suppose this is offtopic, but I hate to see people taken in by such obvious propaganda as that airdrop. I suppose it might as well have been straight pork for the number of people it's feeding.

    12. Re:Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This could have been averted if the Taliban did the right thing and handed Bin Laden over. If anything, they are equally responsible for Afaganistan's fate.

    13. Re:Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should rename operation "enduring freedom" to "operation feed the children". How can anyone be against that?

    14. Re:Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the airdrops aren't for the Afghanis (if they were, they're stupid to stay in Afghanistan), they're for the Spec. Ops. who're operating in Afghanistan

    15. Re:Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your friend is a clown.

    16. Re:Unknown by scoove · · Score: 2

      I hate to see people taken in by such obvious propaganda as that airdrop.

      Seems like we can't win. If we send food, it is an obvious propaganda effort. If we don't send food, then we don't have any compassion for the starving masses.

      Instead of sitting back whining about people making an effort, what would you suggest?

      Why aren't you screaming about how the Taliban isn't providing food to its citizens? Why haven't you gotten on their case for choosing to defend OBL instead of feeding their people? Where is their accountability?

      Please, either knock off the guilt trip or put yourself out of misery. Productive society has no need for it.

      *scoove*

    17. Re:Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, this is getting ridiculous. I demand an answer. Why the hell are some people so stupid that they think there is a frickin' G in the word whine?? Where the hell do you get that? I can understand one or two morons, but this isn't an isolated incident. I see it all the time. Were that many babies simultaneously dropped on their heads once or something? Truly perplexing!

    18. Re:Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll??!? I hereby demand that you go FUCK YOURSELF, Mr. Moderator!

    19. Re:Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=whi nge

    20. Re:Unknown by snol · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with sending an actual non-negligible amount of food? Oh yeah, it might cost the taxpayers some money. Not like a war effort does.

      And obviously the Taliban is to blame for a lot of things. However, the US is to blame for driving off UN services and three (as far as I heard) accidental bombings of humanitarian-effort centers. It's not a question of the Taliban being better - obviously not. Just don't assume that we're morally pure here - after all, US citizens are actually somewhat responsible for the actions of their government. Afghani citizens have relatively little say. That's the reason that I'm "screaming" about what our government is doing wrong rather than what theirs is doing wrong: I actually feel somewhat responsible for US actions. Do you really want to say that a "productive society" has no place for people who criticize their government? How else is a democracy supposed to function?

    21. Re:Unknown by swordboy · · Score: 2

      Let's not jump to conclusions

      I'm sure that the guy from Office Space who invented that "Jump to Conclusions" board game is a rich bastard at this point.

      Sigh...

      --

      Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    22. Re:Unknown by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 0

      amen

      --

      Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    23. Re:Unknown by trolley · · Score: 0

      I'm not xenophobic, I just need a place to park, and it seems like Afghanistan would make a good parking lot.

    24. Re:Unknown by tzanger · · Score: 2

      Seems like we can't win. If we send food, it is an obvious propaganda effort. If we don't send food, then we don't have any compassion for the starving masses.

      Instead of sitting back whining about people making an effort, what would you suggest?

      The same thing I suggested back in September: If the U.S. is hell-bent on helping, SEND PEOPLE -- The food cannot ensure it gets to the intended recipients. The money and weapons can't ensure they get utilized as intended. If you're intent on helping, send aid but send troops to back them up.

      Does this endanger lives? You bet your sweet ass it does. It might also provide a little bit of incentive to carefully pick your fights though. This "hands-off" foreign policy the U.S. has had for the past 50 years or so is as useless as tits on a bull.

    25. Re:Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CmdrTaco, are you loco?

      i understand that you're scared, but you just said you'd happily slit some kids throat over something his parents told him!

      step back, my man, and calm down.

    26. Re:Unknown by ConsumedByTV · · Score: 2

      Please stop discussing my product or I will have to sue you. I own that phrase.

      --


      "Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
    27. Re:Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe a balanced view is necessary. Often times pure citicism comes off sounding like axe-grinding.

    28. Re:Unknown by deaddrunk · · Score: 1

      What hands-off US foreign policy would that be then? The one in the Middle East, South America or South East Asia?

      --
      Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
    29. Re:Unknown by snol · · Score: 1

      Okay, how is this:

      The Taliban is an unrepentant power-hungry group of dictators with no desire for their country's wellbeing. They force the extremes of their religion down their citizens' throats, they support unspeakable violations of human rights particularly with respect to women, and they harbor terrorists who have no respect for innocent lives and who have caused deaths possibly numbering in the tens of thousands in recent years.

      The United States government is a bunch of spin-doctors who think only about public image on the one hand and keeping their campaign funds full on the other. They take revenge for the act of a small group of extremists on the entire country of Afghanistan which already is poor as dirt and needs nothing less than additional terror and death. They excuse this by claiming to "respect" the Afghani people and by dropping negligible amounts of food to no good effect accompanied by generous media attention. The continued bombing and the withdrawal of the UN may cause millions of people to starve this winter who might otherwise have been all right.

      Is that an even-handed assessment of the situation? Now, which one should I bitch about more: my own government, which I might possibly influence somehow? Or the Taliban, which seems to be mostly in hiding, and which never listened to me in the slightest?

      And yes, I suppose I do have a bit of an axe to grind, with respect to people who take in propaganda such as the food airdrops without bothering to do the simple math and figure out that they will have no effect and were never intended to have any effect except to soothe the conscience of the gullible-but-somewhat-humane demographic.

    30. Re:Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a resident of NY, I say "fuck you". We are in Afgahnistan to prevent Al Quada and bin Laden from operating. This is a worthy goal, as any sensible person would see.
      Some innocents over there will be killed. This is too bad, but I'm still glad we are there. Additionally, we have given tonns of relief food over the last few years, far more than all other countries combined.

      So our actions in Afgahnistan have been to:
      Prevent another 10,000 or more American deaths.
      Save millions in Afganistan from starvation.
      Remove one of the most corrupt regimes in existance.
      Give Afgahnistan a chance to join civilization and not have starvation and disease a constant problem.

      As I see it, we are the Afgahni's salvation. That you don't see this shows what a privileged, myopic, knee-jerk bugiouse fuck you are.

    31. Re:Unknown by snol · · Score: 1

      Doesn't seem to be much use arguing with you since I'm just a privileged, myopic, knee-jerk bugiouse fuck. But anyway, I'm a New York resident as well, and I gotta say there's a lot of privileged, myopic, knee-jerk bugiouse fucks around here. I just think we could be Afghanistan's salvation a lot faster and better if we didn't bomb their Red Cross centers, maybe helped clean up their minefields, whatever. As a taxpayer I think it's my right to express the opinion that my money could be used better than by funding a drawn-out nightmare of a war effort there. As a taxpayer (?) it's your right as well to express the opinion that we gotta bomb them Muslim fucks. After all, you wouldn't mind if a bigger, more wealthy country started bombing your hometown because they said there were terrorists and dictators living there. As I see it, we're out to murder us some Afghans. The fact that you don't see it just shows what a privileged, myopic, knee-jerk jingoistic fuck... wait, sorry, I didn't mean for the conversation to degenerate to this level...

    32. Re:Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Removing mines in Afganistan is a noble goal. How do you propose we do it without first removing the Taliban? How could we help the Afgahnis "a lot faster" with the Taliban in power?

      Bombing Red Cross centers is regretible. Accidents happen in wars.

      As a resident of New York, you have used the benefits of western civilization and American civilization in particular. You've always had plenty of food and medicine,freedom of thought and movement. Afgahni's don't. Its time to decide which civilization is superior - they've made it quite clear that both can't coexist.

      As to your rhetorical question regarding a hypothetical country bombing us: If our government treated us as the Taliban treats its citizens - if the conquering government had raised the standard of living of the world and had the most open, free society in history - if my government had vowed the destruction of the other government - I'd bunker down and hope like hell that they won. Wouldn't you?

    33. Re:Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bombing Red Cross centers is regretible. Accidents happen in wars."

      Fuck off! You could just as easily say that Osama bin Laden was declaring war on capitalism and the people who died in New York were "regretable" casualities.

      Why can't anyone see things from the other perspective? Bottom line- attacking people is bad.

      And ok, so I am basing my view on playing combat sims, but I really think you'd have to be ASLEEP to bomb a red cross centre by accident.

    34. Re:Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd take his knife off him, kick him in the arse, and tell him to go home.

      and don't forget that a fair chunk of the world thinks [i]you[/i] are "scum".

      it ain't for you (or me) to judge.

    35. Re:Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are flying the B-2s from Missouri, maybe they ARE asleep.

      "You could just as easily say that Osama bin Laden was declaring war on capitalism and the people who died in New York were "regretable" casualities."

      Yes, you could, that is what he is saying. Unfortuantely, his side of the war is wrong. Ours is right. I chose my side, you should choose yours.

      "Why can't anyone see things from the other perspective? Bottom line- attacking people is bad."

      No, attacking people isn't always bad. The long term benefits to the world (not just the U.S.) to taking out the Taliban and eventually every other radical Muslim nation (which have declared us their mortal enemies) will be to create more freedom and a higher standard of living for the world, including the Arabs.

    36. Re:Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bombing Red Cross centers is regretible. Accidents happen in wars."

      Let me ask the people on this list who they think were going to benefit from those supplies.

      ( ) The Taliban, al Quaida and the military
      ( ) the poor schmuck Afghanistan citizens
      ( ) Christians held in Afghan jails for practicing their faith

    37. Re:Unknown by snol · · Score: 1
      If our government treated us as the Taliban treats its citizens - if the conquering government had raised the standard of living of the world and had the most open, free society in history - if my government had vowed the destruction of the other government - I'd bunker down and hope like hell that they won. Wouldn't you?

      I don't know; it's a good question. I'd tend to say so myself since you phrase it that way, but I don't think most Afghanis see it that way, for whatever reason. What's the explanation? Are you prepared to say that Afghanis in general are just wrong, stupid, deluded, or brainwashed? Maybe we can actually prove them wrong and bring them some measure of prosperity through some kind of Marshall Plan-like program; that's my best hope at this point, frankly, but I don't think this administration will be that charitable. If not, I think the most likely thing if we do eventually drive out the Taliban to our satisfaction is that we basically colonize them and become the kind of benevolent foreign dictators that have been universally hated and thrown out throughout history, usually leading to more dictatorships and atrocities afterward. For one thing, I don't particularly trust the Northern Alliance to be much better than the Taliban. Do we have evidence that they truly intend to bring more freedom and prosperity, or are they using promises of freedom and prosperity to excuse a war that for them is just an effort to kick out a rival ethnic group?

      As for how we could help the Afghanis "a lot faster" -- well, if it was ONLY our intention to help the people, no one turns away no-strings-attached foreign aid. They did, after all, host UN anti-mine and hunger aid efforts. It would've had to have happened before we showed that we intended to make war on them. But as for right now, it seems we're mostly stuck. I have no more good solutions, I can only say that we were wrong to begin bombing and we're wrong to keep it up. The fact that it's all being done in the name of protecting innocent life is, as always in war, hugely ironic. ah well... I don't say you're wrong, I just think your viewpoint is too fixed. I can't see it through the eyes of a bin Laden supporter either, but I don't think you can really back up the assertion that they're wrong and we Americans are right. Might I assert that the average Muslim is no more bloodthirsty than the average American? Put the enthusiastic bin Laden followers next to that section of Americans who seriously want us to use nukes: that would certainly more than level the playing field as far as innocent death is concerned. It's all just a lot more complicated than can be decided in a quick post saying "us or them, and we're better."

    38. Re:Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would love for this to be about something other than "us or them". We've given them that choice. They are free to exist as they choose, as long as they don't support groups which will come into our country for the purpose of killing tens of thousands. It's really not much to ask.

      They have refused to do that. They have made it clear that they see us as an affront to their religion, and that it is their holy duty to kill us all. Faced with this edict, what should our reaction be?

      If these were reasonable people you could consider a diplomatic solution. But we can see from their treatment of women, of other muslim factions, and of us, that they have no respect for human life. Their destruction of the Budda statues and the fatwa on Salman Rushdie speak to their hatred of ideologies which they don't approve of.

      These attitudes permeate the region. If they aren't trying to kill us, they are killing each other. How many tens of millions has Saddam killed with his military, while he allows more millions to starve because he chooses to buy weapons instead of food and medicine? And all the while, we support them with billions in aid dollars, and billions in oil revenues. All we ask is that they don't try to kill us.

      If there was room for a diplomatic solution, it is over.

    39. Re:Unknown by LegendLength · · Score: 1
      If you're intent on helping, send aid but send troops to back them up.


      So send in aid with the troops behind them? Isn't that a bit backwards?

      You send the troops in first, then the aid. Which is what is happening now.
    40. Re:Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      toy need to stay of the computer and fuck your daddy some more...

    41. Re:Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm no "terrorist" sympathiser - i just don't sympathise with you.

      take a reality pill, and stop being such a bigoted loser. and try to fly more :-) arse.

  5. the terrorists have done a great job by wo1verin3 · · Score: 2, Redundant

    Everyone knows what everyone is thinking at this moment, possible cause for the accident.

    They have the public scared, even if this had nothing to do with terrorism, more people will be afraid.

    1. Re:the terrorists have done a great job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if their goal was to launch a massive DDOS attack on all of our News Websites :)

    2. Re:the terrorists have done a great job by Hobbex · · Score: 2


      Remember TWA flight 800, it's not a new thing.

    3. Re:the terrorists have done a great job by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      Actually, most people I know are NOT scared. They are Mad as hell and would like to see Osama tortured to death.

  6. Before we even get started... by Modern+Hamlet · · Score: 2, Redundant

    Step 1: Take 3 deep breaths.
    Step 2: Find out if it was terror or something else entirely.
    Step 3: Take deliberate and appropriate action.

    Moderators, please mod knee jerk posts accordingly...

    mh

    1. Re:Before we even get started... by theCoder · · Score: 3, Informative

      I just heard on CNN (TV version) that the FAA doesn't believe it was a terrorist action.

      It is still a tragedy though :(

      --
      "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
    2. Re:Before we even get started... by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Informative

      Tell that to Wall Street; the Dow Jones dropped 200 points when the news broke. Makes you wonder if their machines are connected to siesmic sensors. :-(

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    3. Re:Before we even get started... by KingKire64 · · Score: 1

      Yeah but its one hell of a coincident that this would happen on veterans day when be are suppoosed to be backing up our ppl in the armed forces

      --
      "All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
    4. Re:Before we even get started... by geigertube · · Score: 1

      >Thank god you stepped forward to bring calm and >order to Slashdot!

      Apparently people considered that posters advice to be necessary, seeing as how the parent is now sitting at +3 insightful. "Oh! We ~shouldnt~ panic! We almost forgot!"

      Unbelievable.

      Anyway, Im putting money down that this is just a random accident, and not an attempted terrorist act.

    5. Re:Before we even get started... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh brother... who needs terrorists when you have the idiotic mechanics and safety experts working at the airline companies :(

    6. Re:Before we even get started... by imipak · · Score: 2
      So, once again I'm back to listening to the TV news in the next room and Slashdot. All news sites seem to be inaccessible - BBC, CNN, Yahoo news...

      Sky News is holding up though, as it did last time:

      http://www.sky.com/skynews/home/

      Sky says: "It is understood the plane suffered an engine failure after takeoff." Doesn't sound like a terrorist attack to me, more like a badly timed accident.

    7. Re:Before we even get started... by The+G · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uh, Veterans Day was yesterday, November 11, the anniversary of the armistice that ended the First World War. Today is just an observed holiday thingy.
      --G

    8. Re:Before we even get started... by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      What amazes me is just how inconsistent the *media * is. I've been listening to the radio and reading the wire for only an hour now and they keep changing the plane type, its destination, its takeoff/landing status, etc.. If the media can't even be consistent, what can we expect on /.?

    9. Re:Before we even get started... by Casca · · Score: 4, Informative

      You have to take anything you hear from the FAA in the first couple of hours with a grain of salt. This being a federal holiday, there is nothing more than a skeleton crew at most FAA locations. None of the upper management are in today. They'll be in, but it will take them some time.

      There are probably only 100 people on site at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center right now, out of 5000 or so... And most of them are security.

      --
      Casca
    10. Re:Before we even get started... by RevAaron · · Score: 2

      No, but they're connected to the next best thing- knee jerk investors. The stock market indicates nothing but the level of paranoia investors are currently at. Anything that could cause a disruption in raping profit will make them puke.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    11. Re:Before we even get started... by kender · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree that this could be an accident, but the government said that the original Anthrax case was just some guy that drank the water while hunting.

      I don't think people should jump to conclusions, but a couple of working hypothesises need to be pursued including terrorism. There is just too many coincidences here to discard terrorism out of hand.

    12. Re:Before we even get started... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The death of one is a tradgedy, the death of >1 is just a statistic.

    13. Re:Before we even get started... by dmarcov · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Maybe with all the upper management types off on on their 3-day weekends, we'll actually get better information.

      Naw -- that never happens.

    14. Re:Before we even get started... by Betcour · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually it is plausible, if an engine fell before the plane crashed it is very well possible that it is an accident. Terrorist usually don't crash the plane by detaching the plane's engine.

      On the other hand the likelyness that two major aircrash happens on NYC itself in a 2 months time is very very low...

    15. Re:Before we even get started... by 4of12 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Makes you wonder if their machines are connected to siesmic sensors. :-(

      Maybe they are connected to seismic sensors these days, but in the good old days they were connected to Ronald Reagan's EKG.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    16. Re:Before we even get started... by GungaDan · · Score: 1
      "raping profit"

      I think that's somehow incestuous. Get in the spirit of the season. They're raking in profits (while raping land, poor nations, sabine women...).

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    17. Re:Before we even get started... by jayhawk88 · · Score: 1

      The stock market indicates nothing but the level of paranoia investors are currently at.

      Well, that, and the relative strength of the worlds economy at any one time. Percieved reality becomes reality of enough people "percieve" it.

    18. Re:Before we even get started... by rhizome · · Score: 1

      It is highly unpatriotic (even if you aren't American) to value calm and order in this situation. If you can post to Slashdot, you aren't at a high enough state of alert. I suggest the "Die of Panic" level.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    19. Re:Before we even get started... by Tesseracti · · Score: 1

      And that's the saddest part. Just like in the WTC events, the losses on board the planes will be dwarfed by what happened outside.. In this case its the fear (justified or not) of terrorism..

      Before 9/11, when a flight went down, we were all focused on the passengers and possible survivors and *then* we worried about cause..

    20. Re:Before we even get started... by nanospook · · Score: 1

      Peter Jennings apologized for the inconsistancies. He mentioned that when something like this happens, it is normal to get differing reports from eye witnesses and other sources...

      --
      Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
    21. Re:Before we even get started... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      w0w... I love racism on /. (btw, doesnt it take more time to type /. than slashdot?, maybe I just suck at typing) racist.... just FYI, I'm not a muslim, but after attending a lecture on "what is islam" at my community college, Islam is one of the only religions that doesn't preach "an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"... its entirely focused around non-violence and equality, and love, and it explicitly states the validity of the Torah, and the Bible, and the existence of Jesus Christ and his return to earth. There are wackos in every group of people... white christians have the KKK, the Aryan Nation and every other militia in the U.S of AK47, middle easterns have INSANE fundamentalist terrorists, and the Jews have mussad. Us Canadians dont have anyone :/. But, alas, ignorance is bliss, peaceful slashdot readers.

    22. Re:Before we even get started... by angelo · · Score: 1

      Not statistically, when you consider two of them were intentional. The odds don't count acts of man.

    23. Re:Before we even get started... by javatips · · Score: 2

      It's true that the probability is very.

      However events don't look at statistics before happening.

      So two events with very probability may arrive within a short time frame.

    24. Re:Before we even get started... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's all business. One murder makes a villain. Millions, a hero. Numbers sanctify..."
      -Charles Chaplin, Monsieur Verdoux

    25. Re:Before we even get started... by gughunter · · Score: 1
      its entirely focused around non-violence and equality, and love



      Islam?! Are you sure the lecture wasn't "What was Woodstock?"

    26. Re:Before we even get started... by swordboy · · Score: 2

      I just heard on CNN (TV version) that the FAA doesn't believe it was a terrorist action.

      Even if it was, then the Gov't would probably quench any media related information. This would shut down the economy just as it did the last time. They are spending too much money (average bomb dropped is $300k to the taxpayers of the US) to have the economy grind to a halt again. I would imagine that it is definitely too early to tell (unless there were radio transmissions from the plane before the fact) but the main concern of the gov't right now is the economy and they need to do everything possible to keep it going. Hell, I am sitting in a large building on the verge of evacuation. No economy today. Go home.

      --

      Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    27. Re:Before we even get started... by cornjones · · Score: 1

      my guess is he meant "reaping profits" and just missed the e

    28. Re:Before we even get started... by PW2 · · Score: 1

      I'm in Atlanta and have not had any trouble accessing CNN and others; it could just be your ISP or some switches along the way that are busy;

    29. Re:Before we even get started... by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      ---Percieved reality becomes reality of enough people "percieve" it----R

      Only if they DO something about it that affects the economy as a whole, as opposed to just one market. Not buying stocks is not the same thing as "bad for the economy," nor is "not buying all types of stock." If people decide that airline stocks are risky, that's fine. Predictable risk differentials are important parts of investing.

      It still amazes me that anyone could think that if we all buy things from each other, we'll all get richer.

    30. Re:Before we even get started... by funky+womble · · Score: 1

      Ananova usually works too.

    31. Re:Before we even get started... by RevAaron · · Score: 2

      No, I meant raping. As in forcibly gaining wealth at the expense of others.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    32. Re:Before we even get started... by funky+womble · · Score: 1

      That's not what UK news reporters have been saying!

    33. Re:Before we even get started... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "For those who keep calling these kinds of things tragedies, I just have one question:

      What is the fatal character flaw that made this happen?"

      The over-confidence of America. As Luke said "Your over-confidence is your weakness",

  7. I can see the smoke by richieb · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I can see the smoke from our office window in downtown Manhattan. It seems that the plane went down in Far Rockway. This would make sense if the plane was on a landing approach, as the wind is out of the south east in NY this morning...

    ...richie

    --
    ...richie - It is a good day to code.
    1. Re:I can see the smoke by richieb · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Actually, checking WeatherUnderground I saw that NY winds are out of north-west. Which means that landing airplanes approach over the water to land on runway 32. Taking off from runway 32 takes the airplane over Far Rockway. So it seems more logical that the airplane was just taking off.

      ...richie

      --
      ...richie - It is a good day to code.
    2. Re:I can see the smoke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems a little funny to start your landing approach over NYC when you're going to be landing in Santo fucking Domingo. But what do I know about flying airplanes, Mr. I-like-spouting-opinions-without-having-any-fuckin g-idea-what-I'm-talking-about?

  8. View it at MSNBC by medscaper · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Live video coverage at MSNBC.

    --
    Any sufficiently well-organized Government is indistinguishable from bullshit.
  9. CBC coverage by Gordo · · Score: 3, Informative

    CBC

    1. Re:CBC coverage by arminh1974 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Google has an excellent assortment of links to news sites in its directory. So even if the major ones like CNN.com etc are down.. you're bound to find some coverage.

    2. Re:CBC coverage by Some+Dumbass... · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the BBC, The Australian and Herald Sun, The New Zealand Herald, and every other English-language paper on the planet (for those of us who prefer to read English, that is). These papers often have more details than American papers, especially with regards to this whole terrorism thing. It's really useful to get an international perspective sometimes.

  10. Flight 587 by waldoj · · Score: 1, Redundant

    This was flight 587, headed to the Dominican Republic.

    -Waldo Jaquith

    1. Re:Flight 587 by aprentic · · Score: 1

      WBAI 99.5 FM in New York just said it was flight 567.

    2. Re:Flight 587 by semaj · · Score: 1

      This was flight 587, headed to the Dominican Republic.

      An American Airlines A300, reportedly. CNN says it originated from Boston, (two of the WTC planes did also?).

      --
      semaj

      --
      Meep meep
    3. Re:Flight 587 by swordboy · · Score: 1, Troll

      Heading to Dominican Republic and thus, full of fuel. Was this a non-stop flight?

      --

      Life is the leading cause of death in America.
  11. According to ABC News by jimmu · · Score: 2, Informative

    According to ABC News (I got a little bit of the vieo blurb before it totally crapped out on me)
    eyewitnesses are reprting that an angine exploded on the approach to JFK, and that several buildings are on fire.

    My Girlfriends family lives in queens, as does the family of someu very close friends of mine . . . . here's to hoping they're all okay.

    --

    ----
    One of us needs to stick ones' head in a bucket of ice water.
    - Hobbes
  12. airbus, not 767 by jamesbrown1000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    it's an airbus A-300 jet, according to MSNBC. or it's a flying saucer, according to Fox News ... :)

    ---

    --
    Mindy: "Well...desserts aren't always right." Homer: "But they're so sweet!"
    1. Re:airbus, not 767 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Re: Airbus A-300 outbound being reported down in Queens, rather than a 767 as reported earlier)

      Or, as Bryant Gumbel reported 2 minutes ago:

      "The plane that went down was a Boeing 767, often called an Air-bus".

    2. Re:airbus, not 767 by Geeky+Frignit · · Score: 2, Informative

      At least FoxNews is still up and running.

      --
      Tired of sitting at that karma cap? Start a flame war today! See just how low you can go!
    3. Re:airbus, not 767 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      or it's a flying saucer, according to Fox News ... :)

      And Fox News will retract that statement and officially call it a weather balloon.

    4. Re:airbus, not 767 by korbatz · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "flying saucer according to Fox News"
      any URL?

      --
      you are not your sig
  13. Got through to CNN by KingKire64 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    all they said is

    An American Airlines 767 has crashed in the Queens borough of New York City. Port Authority officials say the plane was bound for JFK airport. Thick black smoke was billowing over the area, and local media reported several houses on fire. FULL STORY SOON

    --
    "All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
    1. Re:Got through to CNN by jmauro · · Score: 2

      I liked that CNN went into some low-bandwidth mode where most of the information on the site had been dropped completely. Looks like they are starting to learn their lesson about how traffic comes to the site. Too bad they still can't handle a sudden spike.

    2. Re:Got through to CNN by stripes · · Score: 1
      Looks like they are starting to learn their lesson about how traffic comes to the site. Too bad they still can't handle a sudden spike.

      Well they could use a multicast network, like, say cable TV...

    3. Re:Got through to CNN by CokeBear · · Score: 2
      CNN was also in low bandwidth mode for most of Sept 11, when you could get through.

      Doesn't matter, Slashdot is my source for breaking news from now on.

      --
      Reality has a liberal bias
    4. Re:Got through to CNN by rekoil · · Score: 1

      What I think is odd is that a few weeks ago they stopped using Akamai's CDN. I had an easier time getting to them on Sept. 11 than I did this morning.

  14. I cannot believe this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The greatest terrorist attack on the US happened just two months ago and you have the gall to be discussing "Another Plane down in New York"?

    GET SOME PRIORITIES!!

    1. Re:I cannot believe this by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2

      The parent should not have been modded "flamebait." It's a joke, and a funny one.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  15. All the news sites are falling over by GC · · Score: 1

    Almost exactly 2 months after, they would probably not choose 11 Nov as it would be a Sunday.

    Not sure about the Target though, perhaps the passengers reacted.

    This is going to cripple the airline industry further.

    There still is a chance it could have been an accident.

    My thoughts go with all.

    All the news sites are pretty much /.'ed.

    1. Re:All the news sites are falling over by sammy+baby · · Score: 0, Insightful
      Almost exactly 2 months after, they would probably not choose 11 Nov as it would be a Sunday.

      Today is Veteran's Day in the US. I suspect that's why the date was picked.

    2. Re:All the news sites are falling over by weave · · Score: 2
      This is going to cripple the airline industry further.

      Joy, great timing for Amtrak to get disolved. :-(

    3. Re:All the news sites are falling over by M_Talon · · Score: 2

      FYI Veteran's Day was yesterday.

      --
      Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
    4. Re:All the news sites are falling over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time for CEOs of the airline industry to take a little pay cut for a few months to help the industry over this time.....has anyone heard shit about any of the higher ups taking a pay cut to save jobs?

      Here in Canada we had over 9000 layoffs but yet the CEO still continued to collect his 15mil + a year salary.....do you know how many jobs that would be for a month....

    5. Re:All the news sites are falling over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      All the news sites are pretty much /.'ed.



      Or should you say they've just been binladen'ed...

    6. Re:All the news sites are falling over by Bodero · · Score: 2

      No, they wouldn't. Just as the previous poster said, it's not Veteran's day today, and the only thing significant about this post-Veteran's Day is that many people have the day off. Now why would a terrorist interested in killing Americans pick a day that Americans have off? I just heard on Fox News that the plane crashed very close to a school in Queens, which was incidentally closed because of Veteran's Day. Your rationale is ridiculous, so quit speculating.

    7. Re:All the news sites are falling over by GC · · Score: 1

      Yes - perhaps we should call it the "Bin Laden Effect"...

      :(

      It's even worse if Osama doesn't have to lift a finger and planes continue to fall out of the sky...

      ;(

    8. Re:All the news sites are falling over by biglig2 · · Score: 2

      Pardon my ignorance, but is the Muslim Sabbath on a Sunday?

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    9. Re:All the news sites are falling over by mrogers · · Score: 1

      No, it's on Friday.

  16. Accident or...? by FooDog · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Any word yet on whether it's terrorist related or not?

    1. Re:Accident or...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, it was a terrorist act on the part of Airbus. expect a few days interval before we start bombing france.

  17. BBC News story by DanKolb · · Score: 2, Informative

    Their coverage is here.

    --
    Common sense is a set of prejudices built up over a lifetime
  18. Airbus by Keelor · · Score: 3, Redundant

    CNN just said that it was an Airbus 300 that nosedived into Queens. At least 4 homes are on fire.

    No word on cause.

    ~=Keelor

    1. Re:Airbus by Stele · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, they also said it was a Boeing Airbus, and the size info they got was from Boeing's web-site.

      Um, yeah. Way to go CNN.

    2. Re:Airbus by fizz-beyond · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that the homes are on fire because of the plane...

      sorry couldn't resist.

      --
      Blink
    3. Re:Airbus by Fesh · · Score: 2

      *smacks forehead* It's an airliner! Boeing had to have made it! They make all airliners!

      *gags*

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    4. Re:Airbus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      CNN just said that it was an Airbus 300 that nosedived into Queens. At least 4 homes are on fire. No word on cause.

      I think it was because the airplane stopped flying, but what do I know? I'm not an airplanethingamajigger.

    5. Re:Airbus by Nater · · Score: 2

      McDonnell-Douglas and Fokker come to mind. I'm not sure who ownz who anymore, but there are a lot of planes currently in service that were built before the last ten years' worth of aquisitions. Not all airliners are Boeing, but a significantly higher percentage of new airliners are Boeing than are old airliners.

      --

      I like to play children's songs in minor keys.
      "We're all sons of bitches now." --J. Robert Oppenheimer

    6. Re:Airbus by Fesh · · Score: 2

      Might do you some good to tweak up the gain on your sarcasm detector... You might run across a lethal concentration of the stuff and not realize it. (And it's reeeeeeeal hard to get off the bottom of your shoes...

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
  19. Engine Explosion Reported by stinkydog · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    According to radio reports, witnesses on the ground reported that an engine exploded prior to the crash. The plane was on approach to one on the NY airports and therfore not fully fueled as in the last set of attacks. Repoets state that four building are on fire.

    --
    âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
    1. Re:Engine Explosion Reported by byoon · · Score: 1

      They're now saying that it had just taken off from JFK headed for the Dominican. It was only in the air for two minutes or so. This, at first glance, looks more like an accident than a terrorist attack.

    2. Re:Engine Explosion Reported by dillon_rinker · · Score: 2

      Hmmm...so there were no terrorists in the flight path armed with SAMs?

    3. Re:Engine Explosion Reported by byoon · · Score: 1

      Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...could be. Note that I said, "at first glance". If an engine explodes and a plane crashes, that usually indicates mechanical failure. There hasn't been anything to indicate otherwise...yet.

    4. Re:Engine Explosion Reported by darthBear · · Score: 1

      I was always under the impression that most aircraft (especially newer onees) could stay in the air with one engine down. I do not pretend to draw any conlcusions but can anyone confirm or deny this belief?

    5. Re:Engine Explosion Reported by frankie · · Score: 2

      Yes, passenger planes are required to be airworthy after losing an engine. However, take-off is the most engine-intensive part of the flight. The plane is way below cruising speed, with maximum weight (full fuel tanks), and busy converting thrust into altitude.

      So even though it's built to survive take-off at half power, you need a good pilot who knows what to do with a sluggish, off-balance, flying brick.

    6. Re:Engine Explosion Reported by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • The plane was on approach to one on the NY airports

      Moderators, this is now misinformative, later reports are that this was a fully fuelled outbound flight.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    7. Re:Engine Explosion Reported by Exmet+Paff+Daxx · · Score: 1
      I've been listening to the radio and a few webcasts. Most witness accounts share three things:

      • Claim that the plane was making strange, louder-than-normal noise during ascent
      • Claim that one wing was "on fire" during most of ascent.
      • Claim that "something came off" the wing that was burning, after which the plane plummeted straight down. The phrase "like a rock" was used twice by witnesses on CBS.
      --
      If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
    8. Re:Engine Explosion Reported by Jburkholder · · Score: 2

      True fact. Loss of power in one engine should not cause a plane to crash in every case. However, having the engine separate from the airframe is a different situation from simple loss of power. It is reasonable to assume that there would be serious problems resulting from this kind of event: loss of blanace, structural damage to wing, fire in addition to loss of thrust.

      Having an engine shut down is a pretty serious problem. Having one explode during takeoff is certainly much more serious and inevitably catastrophic.

    9. Re:Engine Explosion Reported by gorilla · · Score: 2

      Note there have been past accidents where an engine has been lost on takeoff, most prominatly El-Al 1862 at Amsterdam in October 1992.

    10. Re:Engine Explosion Reported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A plane can hardly stay up if the explosion that destroys the engine takes half the wing with it.

    11. Re:Engine Explosion Reported by Yo_mama · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm guessing it was a catastrophic engine failure.
      Depending on how it fails, it can come off the airframe. There are fuse pins in place that will shear at a certain load to prevent damage to the airframe.

      Two Boeing 747's crashed in the early 1990's when their fuse pins failed. Admittedly it was caused by a cargo door coming open in flight and the debris killing #3 engine which came off and took #4 with it.

      But engines don't normally come off in flight; the stress that would cause that would rip off the wing (or at least parts of it) first.

      I'm leaning towards a catasproohic engine failure, perhaps precipitated by another event such as a cargo door opening (which would happen most often on climb out soon after take off due to the changing pressure). ANother factor is that the airplane had had an "A check" maintenance stop the day before.

      --
      Never understimate the power of human stupidity -Lazarus Long
    12. Re:Engine Explosion Reported by Reductionist · · Score: 1

      Loss of power to an engine is one thing, physically losing an engine from the airframe is a catastrophe so severe that pilots don't even train for it. A similar accident occured with an American Airlines DC-10 that crashed in Chicago shortly after takeoff form O'Hare in 1979.

      "The aircraft crashed on takeoff from Chicago O'Hare. During rotation, the no.1 engine separated from the wing, tearing out vital hydraulic lines. The loss of the no.1 electrical generator disabled the slat disagreement system, and the aircraft rolled over as the left-side slats retracted causing that wing to stall."

      http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi_bin/view_details. cg i?date=05251979&airline=American+Airlines

  20. Re:JHC.... not again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Let slip the dogs of war."

    O.T but, is this a famous saying or quote from someone ?

    Can you reprase/explain it.

  21. On approach to JFK by imrdkl · · Score: 2

    As opposed to being "rerouted", like before.

  22. Re:Spec at the moment by dartboard · · Score: 1

    Now they're saying it was actually headed to Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic)...

  23. Probably Routine Plane crash. by HarrisonSilp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was thinking of going across the office area I'm in to check out CNN but I thought twice, I have better things to do, although there's no word yet I'm betting this has nothing to do with "terrorist" attacks, just another plane crash? If you want to call plane crashes routine.... I'm sure (ok, I hope) this is just a non-event that the media will be all over, news at eleven.

    1. Re:Probably Routine Plane crash. by dachshund · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Plane crashes in major American cities aren't routine at all. Whether this is a terrorist attack or not (and it's looking like not), it has implications for AA, the economy and cities like New York.

      I have to say it's a hell of a bad run of luck for AA, though. And the aviation industry in general... I always thought it was a little bit nuts to have jets flying low above dense areas of the city.

      246 passengers, plus 9 crew.

    2. Re:Probably Routine Plane crash. by pcgamez · · Score: 1

      > I always thought it was a little bit nuts to have jets flying low above dense areas of the city.

      and they are going to fly.....where? Planes MUST fly low over cities to take off/land and planes WILL make a lot of noise.

      people just need to get over it.

    3. Re:Probably Routine Plane crash. by cavemanf16 · · Score: 1
      It's been widely proven that securing the areas and people that WORK on the mechanical aspects of airplanes is a very difficult task. You should keep in mind, that someone could have tampered with the engine prior to take off, since they knew they wouldn't be able to get on the plane to hijack it. I'm hoping this was nothing more than an accident, but let's not discount possibilities until all is said and done.

      So why the hell aren't we blowing the shit out of the Taliban on their religious holiday? Islamic militant nations (at the time) did it to Isreal back in '67 on Yom Kippur. Any military commander with a lick of sense knows that the best time to attack is when the enemies will power to fight is the weakest.

    4. Re:Probably Routine Plane crash. by zulux · · Score: 2

      I always thought it was a little bit nuts to have jets flying low above dense areas of the city.

      Actually - the most dangerous part of flying on an airplane is the drive to the airport. You're more likly (on a per mile basis) to die in your car, than in a commercial plane. If we put the airports out in the countryside, then perhaps more people would die due to the increased car travel to and from the airport.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    5. Re:Probably Routine Plane crash. by gorilla · · Score: 2

      Also a heck of a lot of airports WERE out in the countryside, when they were built. But since then, the areas around them have been built up, often by people who travel a lot and want to live near the airport.

    6. Re:Probably Routine Plane crash. by jafac · · Score: 2

      Yeah, the most dangerous part of an air trip is the drive to the airport, because that's when a plane will fall on your head!

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    7. Re:Probably Routine Plane crash. by funky+womble · · Score: 1
      Planes MUST fly low over cities to take off/land
      Who says that airports have to be so close to cities?
    8. Re:Probably Routine Plane crash. by pcgamez · · Score: 1

      NIMBY factor. Not In My Back Yard. This means that no matter where you try to build a new airport, too many people will object. Most of the existing airports HAVE been built away from cities. The problem is that people build housing closer and closer. Then, people start complaining about the noise, etc. Take KCI (Kasnas City International). Today is is about 30 miles from anything major. Fifteen years from today there will be housing around there. Its just the way things work.

    9. Re:Probably Routine Plane crash. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When they were built they weren't close. But then people start buying the "cheap" land near the airport and complain about the noise, etc. What we really need is to ban all commercial/private develop withing a 5-10 mile "curtain" around airports and kick out all the morons who moved in next to them in the first place. It's sort of like moving in next door to a hog-raising operation and complaining about the smell - how stupid can you be?

    10. Re:Probably Routine Plane crash. by HarrisonSilp · · Score: 1
      Plane crashes in major American cities aren't routine at all.

      Am I the only one who remembers that jumbo jet grounded in the middle of a Detroit freeway? I'm not saying plane crashes in urban areas are routine, but they certainly aren't the most unlikely incidents.

      Pre-9-11 we would never have the White House Press Secretary talking to the press for almost an hour about a "routine" plane crash, it just goes to show what we're going to be looking forward to.

    11. Re:Probably Routine Plane crash. by dachshund · · Score: 1
      Pre-9-11 we would never have the White House Press Secretary talking to the press for almost an hour about a "routine" plane crash, it just goes to show what we're going to be looking forward to.

      The explosion of TWA flight 800 killed 230 people, with no damage to residential areas or ground casualties. I would say that was anything but "routine". This plane carried more than 250 passengers and crew, not including those killed on the ground. TWA 800 has inspired dozens of investigations. I have no idea whether the White House held a press conference upon learning of TWA 800, but I would imagine that it's very likely... Given that several federal agencies were involved, and there was speculation that Navy ships might have been at fault.

      So... I'm surprised at your implication that pre-9/11 this wouldn't have been a big deal. It's certainly a bigger deal, considering that it's the third plane to crash in New York in 8 weeks or so, and we're concerned about the possibility of terrorism. It would be more relevant to point out that NY wouldn't have closed its bridges and tunnels because of a plane crash prior to 9/11.

  24. Oh my Goodness! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It's September 11th all over again!

    We're all going to die...

    linux linux linux linux linux linux linux linux linux linux linux linux linux linux linux linux linux linux linux linux linux linux linux !

  25. Just on CNN by ElDuque · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Airbus 300 on it's way to Santo Domingo, Flight 587

  26. :O/ by _aa_ · · Score: 1

    was not inbound... bound for dominican republic.. AA flight #587 Airbus a300..

    1. Re::O/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pilot may have noticed something, and tried to land at JFK in an emergency. Just a guess, though. It would explain the confusion over whether it was inbound our outbound.

  27. AP Story by BurritoJ · · Score: 1, Redundant

    PLANE CRASHES IN QUEENS, NEW YORK

    NEW YORK (AP) . A plane crashed Monday morning in the Queens section of New York, and buildings reportedly were on fire in the neighborhood.

    The plane crashed shortly after 9 a.m. and thick, black smoke could be seen in televised reports.

    The type of plane and number of people aboard were not immediately known. CNN reported that American Airlines confirmed the plane was an inbound American Airlines Boeing 767. The airline told The Associated Press it had no immediate comment.
    11-12-01 0940EST

  28. Stern Caller -- Interesting idea by ellem · · Score: 0

    --The Fireman who told Osama "Come Get Me, I Live in Far Rockaway..."

    --Plane crash landed in Far Rockaway.

    --
    This .sig is fake but accurate.
  29. Foxnews is reporting that it was an Airbus 300... by DAldredge · · Score: 1, Funny

    Foxnews is reporting that it was an Airbus 300 that crashed after take off.

  30. umm... by fjordboy · · Score: 0

    Appearently, according to the TV I am watching, 2 planes crashed...not just one. Definitely terrorist.

    1. Re:umm... by fjordboy · · Score: 1

      nevermind, the newscaster was confused...it was FLIGHT 587 which was a 767...not two different planes. My bad. Sorry...i was just trying to give some info....the news made a mistake and I unfortunately believed them.

    2. Re:umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the TV *you're* watching? And is your neighbor's dog telling you to go kill?

      Seriously - this is crap. Time for some new batteries for you Miracle Ear.

    3. Re:umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you recall what happened 9/11, the same thing happened over and over again, and we got reports that a plane may have hit the capitol building, the white house, the washington monument (ouch), and the moon.

      Best to take a completely objectivist look at this before rushing to conclusions.

    4. Re:umm... by kievit · · Score: 1

      So: the news sources are confusing (natural phenomenon in crises). do we have
      a boeing 767 OR an airbus 300 crashing (previous posts)
      or
      a boeing 767 AND an airbus 300 crashing (I would conclude that from your post)

  31. Airbus A300 by Mr+Krinkle · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Not a 767.
    From CNN
    "An American Airlines plane has crashed in the Queens borough of New York City. The FAA identifies the flight as American flight 587, an Airbus A300 from JFK airport to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Thick smoke was billowing over the area, and local media reported several houses on fire."

    --
    I am 31337 or something.
  32. cnn story.. by heytal · · Score: 1, Redundant

    NEW YORK (CNN) -- Queens police confirm an aircraft crashed Monday in the Far Rockaways neighborhood of the New York City borough.

    The spokesman could not confirm the type of plane but said it crashed in the Rockaways at 122nd Street and Rockaway Beach Boulevard.

    WCBS-TV reported that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said it was an American Airlines 767 presumably on approach to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York. The station showed pictures of a huge plume of smoke.

  33. MSNBC, BBC unreachable as of 6:46 PST by raumdass · · Score: 1

    NYTIMES.com is up and has an AP article on the crash, foxnews is also unreachable.

    CNN has just announced that the plane that crashed was an Airbus A300 AA headed to the Dominican Reublic from JFK.

  34. Re:JHC.... not again. by Jodrell · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    It's from Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare. You may have heard of him.

  35. correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was taking off, not landing. Just getting ready to fly to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.

  36. impacted at 129th and Newport- map of impact by jack+deadmeat · · Score: 2, Redundant

    Buildings burning.

    Yahoo map of impact zone

    http://maps.yahoo.com/py/maps.py?BFCat=&Pyt=Tmap &a ddr=&city=Rockaway+Park&state=NY&slt=40.580000&sln =-73.836700&mlt=40.578000&mln=-73.844100&zip=&coun try=us&mag=9&cs=7&BFClient=&BFKey=&poi=&poititle=& map.x=107&map.y=204

    1. Re:impacted at 129th and Newport- map of impact by babbage · · Score: 2

      If you're going to give a url, you can at least make a link out of it :) .
      i was going to offer to make a shorter link, but for some reason that site is mutating the map url into something that yahoo can't recognize (it either points to rockaway new jersey, or it just doesn't point). not sure why, it's never been a problem before. oh well, the one above should work, but in the future, when referencing a really long url, makeashorterlink.com rocks...

  37. BBC News 24 live feed by MuddyFunster · · Score: 1
  38. robots.cnn.com load balancing mirror by Fiery · · Score: 4, Informative

    Robots.cnn.com is a load balancing mirror for CNN. How long till they go barebones again?

    Current headline:

    An American Airlines plane has crashed in the Queens borough of New York City. The FAA identifies the flight as American flight 587, an Airbus A300 from JFK airport to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Thick smoke was billowing over the area, and local media reported several houses on fire.

    1. Re:robots.cnn.com load balancing mirror by Baba+Abhui · · Score: 1

      This is the first time I've heard of robots.cnn.com. It seems to work extremely well, which is great.

      But what is it? Why doesn't CNN have some way of pointing the cnn.com URL at a system like this at times like this?

    2. Re:robots.cnn.com load balancing mirror by X86Daddy · · Score: 1

      I know this is off-topic, but the mention of barebones CNN reminded me: Did anyone else think it was great to see CNN in barebones mode a couple months ago? The tragedy was horrible, of course, but when I saw CNN looking like the web did 5+ years ago, I got a sort of nostalgic feeling, accompanied with a sense of "this is the right way to do it."

      Anyone else feel that way?

    3. Re:robots.cnn.com load balancing mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You folks aren't to swooft are you "a load balancing mirror"? Er, no. Hmm, wonder which part of "robots.cnn.com" might kind of designate this as a server for Robots to visit to get data from and not as a mirror or load balancing or something. If you don't know what your talking about don't comment.

    4. Re:robots.cnn.com load balancing mirror by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      It's for, as the name implies, robots. I.e., the little scripts that get data for search engines to file away cnn stories in their databases. It's not for people, and if too many people start using it for "load balencing" it'll probably screw up how they allocate resources somewhat.

  39. Scary Shit by yadung · · Score: 1

    This time it is even closer to where my dad works. Not even a mile away. Scares the shit out of me.

    --
    "He who laughs last is usually the dumbest kid on the block." - John Lennon
    1. Re:Scary Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope everything is ok for you and your friends and family. I don't think this was an attack, but there is plenty to be afraid of :(

  40. At least four buildings are on fire. by pomakis · · Score: 1
    According to the CBC News report, at least four buildings are on fire as a result of the crash. Also, "Witnesses say residents have been ordered out of the area. All New York airports are said to be closed."

  41. Though We Hope Not... by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    Possibly and another, or a copy-cat, though this was wan IN-bound flight.

    If this is indeed another hijacking brought down by passengers, the hijackers are demonstrating the type enginuity and resolve that the House lacks in getting the damn airline security bill passed.

    If it's an accident...?

    Imagine what this is going to do to Thanksgiving Holiday air traffic. Also, in the face of Am-Trak being asked to consider it's assets for liquidation. The irony.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Though We Hope Not... by mark_lybarger · · Score: 1

      either way, i thing this is going to be a MAJOR setback to the airlines industry. normal folks were just getting back onto flights, even people who usually can't afford to fly have taken advantage of huge price breaks. accident or not, i forsee this keeping people AWAY from planes. too bad trains are soo damn slow.

    2. Re:Though We Hope Not... by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      either way, i thing this is going to be a MAJOR setback to the airlines industry. normal folks were just getting back onto flights, even people who usually can't afford to fly have taken advantage of huge price breaks. accident or not, i forsee this keeping people AWAY from planes. too bad trains are soo damn slow.

      I was just talking to my sister, asking if she was considering flying out to visit me in California, not 30 minutes ago. Going so far as to indicate that airfares are a bargain right now. I could hear "Little House on the Prairie" in the background. I can imagine what she's seeing on her TV right now. Trains may be slow, but even in train wrecks not everyone dies, usually very few. I think I'll suggest taking Am-Trak.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  42. A-300 by GweeDo · · Score: 1

    They now know that it was an Airbus A-300 not a 767. It was taking off and heading for the Dominiqin Republic. It appears to have happened very shortly after take-off with no prior warning. Got this all from MSNBC

  43. hm. by gnurd · · Score: 0, Redundant

    "my name is mike moran. i live in rockaway. this is my face bitch."
    here's hoping it was an accident.

    --
    "i was saying gnu-rd"
  44. BBC news still on-line by Escoutaire · · Score: 3, Informative

    The BBC news site is still responding, albeit slowly. news.bbc.co.uk Escoutaire When a dream dreams the dreamer, the dreams the real.

    --
    When a dream dreams the dreamer, the dreams the real.
    1. Re:BBC news still on-line by imipak · · Score: 3, Informative
      Sky News: Plane Crashes In New York A plane has crashed into a residential area of New York. It is understood the plane was an Airbus A300 and suffered engine failure shortly after taking off from JFK airport. Reports say the aircraft may have been carrying up to 246 passengers when it plunged into homes in Queens. The jet, thought to be flight 587, was heading to Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic. There are reports the plane hit a number of homes near Rockaway beach. One eyewitness said pieces of the plane were falling off mid-air and flames were seen on "I saw a large piece hit a hood of a car," one women told Fox News. "It seem to fold and fall onto a residential area," adding that she initially thought the plane was a Concorde. F15 fighter jets are now in the skies of New York - the incident comes two months after the US terrorist attacks on the US. They were believed to be in the sky when the plane crashed. Security chiefs said there was no evidence of terrorist activity but all airports in New York have now been closed as a precautionary measure. Bridges and tunnels have been closed The city has also been put on the highest state of alert. A huge plume of smoke is rising above the New York skyline as the wreckage burns. The Dow Jones dropped 200 points as news of the crash reached the markets. Early reports said the plane was a Boeing 767 - the same type which crashed into the World Trade Centre. More follows .. Last Modified: 15:20 UK, Monday November 12, 2001

      The BBC in the UK is carrying live TV footage of F15s fighters flying very low over the area.

    2. Re:BBC news still on-line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good job us Europeans don't have to share the same BBC server as USians :)

  45. Possible blurb from AP wire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    06:34 PST NEW YORK (AP) --

    A plane crashed Monday morning in the Queens section of New York, and buildings reportedly were on fire in the neighborhood.

    The plane crashed shortly after 9 a.m. and thick, black smoke could be scene in televised reports.

    The type of plane and number of people aboard were not immediately known.

    CNN says the plane was on approach for landing...

  46. BBC News by nick255 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    An American Airlines flight on its way to John F Kennedy airport has crashed in New York.
    At least four buildings in the Rockaway Beach area of the city's borough of Queens are on fire.

    It is not known why the aircraft crashed or how many people were on board, or in the buildings now ablaze.

    New York Mayor Rudolph Guiliani is on his way to the crash site and has called a level one alert.

    There is no indication at the moment that the crash is anything other than an accident.

    The weather was crystal clear when the plane - thought to be a Boeing 767 - went down.

    Both towers of the World Trade Center in New York were destroyed on 11 September after 767s were flown into them.

    All three airports serving New York - JFK, Newark and La Guardia - are now closed.

    The Dow index dropped 200 points on hearing the news.

  47. Mechanical failure? by marko_ramius · · Score: 1

    A co-worker of mine just told me that he heard on the radio that eyewittnesses reported seeing one of the engines exploding.

    I don't mean this to be crass ... but I hope it was just a mechanical failure.

    mr

    1. Re:Mechanical failure? by shpoffo · · Score: 1

      Yea, well, when you lay-off a large portion of you mechanics and other maitenence support personel and then try to continue operating as normal something is bound to break. US Airways has been laying off large amounts of people too. Expect to see more of this if the trend continues.

      -shpoffo

  48. Remember Non-US sites will be less busy. by Ami+Ganguli · · Score: 4, Informative

    For example: Canada's Globe & Mail

    --
    It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
    1. Re:Remember Non-US sites will be less busy. by FFFish · · Score: 2

      I'd also have said that non-US sites will be less prone to hyperbole, but after listening to CBC Radio One this morning, waiting for them to go back to normal programming, it because pretty damn apparent that they've got their heads up their asses as far as anyone else.

      Way the heck too much repeated non-insightful non-news.

      Even *after* most reports are that this is a aircraft failure and *not* a terrorist attack, they're still wasting everyone's time trying to make a story of it.

      Gahd, I can hardly wait for the media to get its shit together once again.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
  49. Plane type by arnoroefs2000 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    It's not a 767, it was an Airbus A-300...

    Would be looking like this...
    http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=191200

  50. Flight 587 down... by GryMor · · Score: 1

    American Flight 587 out of JFK to the Dominican Republic down in Queens :( Good luck to everyone.

    --
    Realities just a bunch of bits.
    1. Re:Flight 587 down... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't think Pentiums needed a coprocessor.

  51. Re:*Leap* by FatRatBastard · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Winning the land battle in Afghanistan does nothing to make us safer

    Not to open a can of worm here, but neither does doing nothing. I'd rather go after the guy who did it than not.

  52. Doesn't look like terrorism? by imuffin · · Score: 1

    From the initial information, which is quite sparse, this doesn't follow the pattern of the earlier terrorist attacks. If it crashed while it was comming in for a landing, it would do much less damage, because I assume it would have much less fuel. Also, if you have control of an airplane, why not ram it into a tall building instead of some houses?

    Of course we know so little at this point, speculating seems pointless..

    1. Re:Doesn't look like terrorism? by CDWert · · Score: 1

      Could be a replay of what happened in PA

      --
      Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
    2. Re:Doesn't look like terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm not sure if it would do *less* damage when coming in for a landing....when there is less jet fuel in the tanks, there is a lot more of the volatile vapors to explode, making for a bigger bang -- on the other side of the coin, when taking off, there is more jet fuel in the tanks, which makes for a hotter and longer burn -- so it's a toss-up as to which would actually cause more damage....not to sound like a sadist or anything.

      Odds are pretty good that this was not a terrorist attack -- any terrorist attacks would be totally clandestine right about now -- they're probably not going to use planes again. IMHO, they probably more likely to hit the passenger train systems.....

    3. Re:Doesn't look like terrorism? by g0rath · · Score: 1

      Of course it could have also been a shoulder stinger missle that we've seen all over CNN.

      Some people have eluded to that being a possible scenario of the TWA flight in '98. Either way it's scary.

  53. Direct URL to CNN story (via load-balancing) by Fiery · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Direct URL to CNN story (via load-balancing) by Talla · · Score: 1

      A "Boeing Airbus A300"?

      Hopefully, the airline companies will soon try to implement real antiterror measures. Now they just have some useless ones to give the illusion of safety, so the customers don't stop flying.

    2. Re:Direct URL to CNN story (via load-balancing) by CvD · · Score: 1

      This is interesting: "Boeing Airbus A300" as mentioned in the CNN article. Since when are Airbusses made by Boeing?

    3. Re:Direct URL to CNN story (via load-balancing) by rveety · · Score: 1
      Fights??
      (From robots.cnn.com/2001/US/11/12/newyork.crash/ index.html)
      The Pentagon said surveillance fights were going on in the area and nothing unusual had been spotted.
    4. Re:Direct URL to CNN story (via load-balancing) by Maledictus · · Score: 1

      Hmm...kinda like the story I saw on 9/11 that talked about the Pentagon's "octagonal" shape.

      --
      Consigned to flames of woe.
    5. Re:Direct URL to CNN story (via load-balancing) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      surveillance fights were going on in the area

      my spell checker didn't give me any errors!! Sorry!!!

    6. Re:Direct URL to CNN story (via load-balancing) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (surveillance) Fights??

      Yup, surveillance fights. That's when the FBI, state, and local law enforcement argue over who gets dibs on your phone tap.

  54. NYTIMES by KingKire64 · · Score: 1

    NEW YORK -- An American Airlines Airbus A300 crashed Monday morning in the Queens section of New York, and buildings reportedly were on fire in the neighborhood. The plane crashed shortly after 9 a.m. and thick, black smoke could be seen miles away. All metro area airports were closed following the crash, in the Rockaways section of Queens. The mayor canceled his morning events and headed to the scene. One eyewitness reported debris falling from sky, and told the Fox News Channel four homes were on fire. Another told CNN he was 40 blocks away and saw "Just a lot of smoke. Tons and tons of smoke. You can see emergency vehicles heading to area. Lots of people are standing in the streets. It's very tense." The cause of the crash was not immediately known. The crash came two months after the attack on the World Trade Center, which was destroyed by two Boeing 767s hijacked out of Boston's Logan Airport. One of the planes was operated by American, the other by United.

    --
    "All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
    1. Re:NYTIMES by KingKire64 · · Score: 1

      Heres The BBC:An American Airlines flight on its way to John F Kennedy airport has crashed in New York. At least four buildings in the Rockaway Beach area of the city's borough of Queens are on fire. It is not known why the aircraft crashed or how many people were on board, or in the buildings now ablaze. New York Mayor Rudolph Guiliani is on his way to the crash site and has called a level one alert. There is no indication at the moment that the crash is anything other than an accident. The weather was crystal clear when the plane - thought to be a Boeing 767 - went down. Both towers of the World Trade Center in New York were destroyed on 11 September after 767s were flown into them. All three airports serving New York - JFK, Newark and La Guardia - are now closed. The Dow index dropped 200 points on hearing the news.

      --
      "All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
  55. BBC link (no response from US sites) by brigmar · · Score: 0, Redundant

    BBC Link

    Will probably by /.'d by now....

  56. bandwidth/capacity by mgkimsal2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Did every news site return all the extra servers and bandwidth they acquired during the 9/11 attack? Suddenly I can't get to cnn, yahoo news, and many other sites. What happened to their extra capacity?

    1. Re:bandwidth/capacity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most news sites were akamaized during 9/11. Aparently, they aren't anymore. Stupid.

    2. Re:bandwidth/capacity by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 3, Interesting
      "What happened to their extra capacity?"

      The sad thing is that it's probably not cost-effective. The only time I've seen this happen is when it's been news so big (WTC and this recent crash) that I've heard about it even though I'm at work. On average, it seems that news big enough to get transmitted through the school/office grapevine happens less frequently than yearly. It's things like:

      • The Challenger exploding
      • The OJ verdict (someone actually left the class I was in, found out the verdict, and wandered in whispering, "Not guilty"; even weirder is that it wasn't my class -- I was taking notes for fraternity brother that wanted to watch it on TV)
      • The WTC disaster

      I'm probably leaving some out, as my memory isn't the best, but these things are infrequent occurances. Unfortunately, news sites have to worry about doing what turns a profit. CNN is, at least, transferring servers over from less critical departments (such as Cartoon Network), but it's hard for them to justify having servers there that're idle 99+% of the time.

      It's a shame there's not a technology-based solution that automatically kicks in for obscenely popular sites. Some sort of popular site caching mechanism or a P2P system might do the trick (and provide a more legitimate use for P2P technologies). Such a system would also help out in non-emergency situations, such as when a given novelty site gets its 15 minutes of Internet fame.

    3. Re:bandwidth/capacity by Chops · · Score: 2

      It's a shame there's not a technology-based solution that automatically kicks in for obscenely popular sites. Some sort of popular site caching mechanism or a P2P system might do the trick (and provide a more legitimate use for P2P technologies). Such a system would also help out in non-emergency situations, such as when a given novelty site gets its 15 minutes of Internet fame.

      There is -- it's called a caching proxy. You can set one up at your site, speed up local access, and help reduce load on the internet as a whole.
    4. Re:bandwidth/capacity by FFFish · · Score: 1

      The Challenger exploded many years before the Internet was publicly accessible, and many, many years before commercial media websites were available.

      There were no server problems on that day. Not heavy-traffic related, at any rate.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    5. Re:bandwidth/capacity by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 1
      "The Challenger exploded many years before the Internet was publicly accessible"

      Right, but my point was to illustrate the infrequency of such wide-scale media events. Given the relatively young age of the widely accessible, commercial Internet, we have to look before its time for some of our data.

    6. Re:bandwidth/capacity by funky+womble · · Score: 1

      And here's one that's a bit more pleasant.

  57. Leaving, not landing by demosthenes · · Score: 1

    According to the radio, the Am. Airlines plane was *departing* JFK, and had only been in the air for two minutes before crashing. With reports of the engine exploding, it sounds like a bomb or engine failure as opposed to a hijacking.

    - Demosthenes

    1. Re:Leaving, not landing by Adnans · · Score: 1, Redundant
      • Plane came from Boston, heading to Dominican Republic.
      • Plane was an Airbus A300
      • At least 4 buildings on fire
      --
      "In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people." --Linus Torvalds
  58. Live on-line coverage of the plane crash by jeanicinq · · Score: 1

    There is live on-line news coverage of the plane crash already at ABCNews.

  59. Slow down everyone! by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    First people hear the initial incorrect reports (incoming flight, 767), then other people post more up to date information. Then the first wave berates the second wave for not having the correct info. Then they just look stupid for getting knee-jerk news reports anyhow.

    Slow down, don't post so damn quick.

    1. Re:Slow down everyone! by ergo98 · · Score: 2

      Obviously very few of the people on here are going to have better sources than the news media themselves, so if you're coming here looking for the final say in the news... People are relaying what each of the different news outlets are saying, and if those outlets are giving false info: Well don't blame the messenger. However I'd rather get all the information than "Wait until tomorrow when we have everything sorted out".

  60. news happens too fast by Covant · · Score: 1

    Now I'm watching ABC, and it sounds like it's actually an Airbus, and the plane was actually taking off. Hence the huge amounts of smoke.

    Looks like an accident. There's a lady on the phone who saw it happen, said the plane just started taking off, and then plummeted.

    --
    "Peace, Love and Apathy"
  61. From MSNBC by Red+Avenger · · Score: 1

    NEW YORK, Nov. 12 -- At least four homes were ablaze Monday after an American Airlines 767 aircraft crashed near the heavily populated Rockaway Beach area of New York City, not far from John F. Kennedy International Airport, NBC News reported on Monday. The Airbus-300, Flight 587, was heading to Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic.
    DETAILS WERE sketchy although cameras in Manhattan showed a thick plume of smoke billowing high above Queens.
    The local NBC affiliate, WNBC, reported that the crash occurred in the Bel Harbor section of the Rockaways at around 9:15 a.m. ET.
    JFK and La Guardia Airport, which is also based in Queens, were shut after the accident.
    An eyewitness told WNBC that he saw a wing of the plane on fire after takeoff from JFK.

  62. Re:stop crashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You must be new here. He did reply to another comment, you just don't see that other comment because it's below your threshold.

  63. Airbus by mnemon1c · · Score: 1

    Fox News just reported it as being a American Airlines' Airbus Leaving JFK to the Dominican Republic.

    --
    Ah, the last peanut -- overflowing with the oil and salt of its departed brothers. -Homer
  64. Re:JHC.... not again. by alexjohns · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    One word: Shakespeare

    Mark Antony says it in "THE TRAGEDY OF JULIUS CAESAR". Might want to read up on stuff like that. It's the fabric of our civilization.

  65. Airline industry is going to hurt by g0rath · · Score: 1

    I can hear the phone lines ringing off the hook with the scared masses canceling thier thanksgiving flights. If it was an accident, then it just dealt another major blow to our emotions and economy.

    Pray for the familes of yet another downed flight.

  66. Strong Reason to be Late to Work in the Mornings by albert_tam · · Score: 0

    Man, I don't know about you all, but after the 9-11 and now 11-12, I think I got a pretty damn strong reason for reporting to work late in the mornings... Traffic jams don't work now, try terrorist attacks. :-)

  67. BBC Link by squaretorus · · Score: 2

    This Story at the BBC is up and down like a YoYo.
    BBC Radio 1 is reporting nothing at present - actually playing 'heaven is a halfpipe'!

    1. Re:BBC Link by alanw · · Score: 1

      This link is better - low graphics (w3m rules) and bypasses the load balancer, which was the bottlneck on 11th Sep

  68. Video on MSNBC by InfoCynic · · Score: 2, Informative
    Good luck getting through, but there's some video feed available here (you'll have to select the right link since M$ is using JavaScript).

    http://www.msnbc.com/m/lv/default.asp?0cv=c642

    --

    "Recta non toleranda futuaris nisi irrisus ridebis"

  69. CNN Article Posted by digital_freedom · · Score: 3, Informative

    Since the CNN site is getting hammered (Don't they ever learn?) Here's the text:

    American Airlines jet crashes in New York
    November 12, 2001 Posted: 9:54 AM EST (1454 GMT)

    NEW YORK (CNN) -- An American Airlines jet crashed Monday in the New York City borough of Queens.

    CNN confirmed the plane was American Airlines Flight 587 from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. The plane was an Airbus A-300. American Airlines did not immediately release the number of passengers on the flight.

    A New York police spokesman said the plane crashed in the Rockaways section of Queens. At least four houses were on fire, and a huge plume of smoke could be seen rising from the site.

    All three New York City-area airports -- Kennedy, LaGuardia and Newark -- closed after the crash, according to CNN affiliate WCBS in New York. Mayor Rudy Giuliani declared a Level One emergency, mobilizing all available police, fire and emergency personnel.

  70. Re:Though We Hope Not... NY TIMES URL by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    Trying to bring up the story on New York Times I get an Orbitz pop-under ad. Story probably requires the free registration.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  71. Map of Queens: by ookla_the_mok · · Score: 3, Informative

    For those that don't live in NYC there is a map of queens here

    FYI: Far rockaways are very near JFK.

  72. A300... by sir_nas · · Score: 1

    According to this article, it was an A300 bound for Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic from JFK. It crashed shortly after take off, thus hitting a few houses and catching them on fire.

    1. Re:A300... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to a strange report,
      this was a Concorde crashing after landing. ;-)

      Go back to work this was just an accident.

  73. from CNN by deander2 · · Score: 2


    Plane crash in NYC
    An American Airlines plane has crashed in the Queens borough of New York City. The FAA identifies the flight as American flight 587, an Airbus A300 from JFK airport to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Thick smoke was billowing over the area, and local media reported several houses on fire.

  74. Airbus A-300, not 767 by Jburkholder · · Score: 4, Informative

    to reply to my own post, CNN has a different report now:

    CNN confirmed the plane was American Airlines Flight 587 from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. The plane was an Airbus A-300. American Airlines did not immediately release the number of passengers on the flight.

    http://robots.cnn.com/2001/US/11/12/newyork.cras h/ index.html

    1. Re:Airbus A-300, not 767 by cyclist1200 · · Score: 0, Insightful

      It's amazing how fluid facts are at this stage in a story. I just got an email from my site director saying the same thing, that the plane was an Airbus A300 outbound to the DR. Everywhere else is reporting it as an inbound 767.

    2. Re:Airbus A-300, not 767 by dots+and+loops · · Score: 1

      The story depends entire on which news feed you're listening to at this point. Local news and national news are currently contradicting themselves. Another indication of the lack of fact-checking in a world of instant information.

  75. European CNN mirror still works. by Oztun · · Score: 4, Informative
  76. Re:*Leap* by stapedium · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Nothing to make us safer....

    I'm not sure how you are coming up with this. Destroying Taliban resources and personel does not improve our defense against attacks for which the logistics are already in place. What it does do is prevent this group from organizing and supporting further attacks.
    All of this is still premature as no one has claimed responsibility for this crash. Various groups have not even had the chance to condone or denounce it.

  77. The norm.... by swordboy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I believe that unless they do something about minimum wage, lowest bidder security, that this will be the norm.

    Get used to it.

    --

    Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    1. Re:The norm.... by jmauro · · Score: 1

      Errr....raising the minimum wage would have little effect since it would push all the bids up by the same amount. Meaning the lowest bid is still the lowest bid.

    2. Re:The norm.... by Legion303 · · Score: 1
      He said "minimum wage [...] security," indicating that he thinks security at minimum wage is a bad idea. I agree.

      -Legion

    3. Re:The norm.... by nanospook · · Score: 1

      I believe that unless they do something about minimum wage, lowest bidder security, that this will be the norm.



      I agree, my company has spent years writing and promoting CBT software for the aviation industry. Our primary audience in America are those security companies. It isn't that the employees are necessarily incompentent to work there, its the incredibly high turnover rates. Try finishing a software development project where your team of programmers totally rotate every month. They need to make the job one that the airport screeners will see as a career investment. Just like we work a job where we get benefits and are willing to bust our humps to make the company suceed, so should they. Many of these screeners have a lot of pride and deserve a hand for working under difficult situations, but like any group, you are going to have morons and incompentants who never should be there in the first place.

      --
      Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
  78. Not a 767 by szcx · · Score: 2

    It was an A300 heading to the Dominican Republic.

  79. Location from abcnews.com by duckie13 · · Score: 1

    "The plane reportedly crashed near Beach 129th Street and Newport Avenue, in the Rockaways section of Queens."

    Hope everyone's OK :/

    --
    "My days are less enjoyable because of people." ~ Johnny the Homicidal Maniac
  80. Clarifications from CNN (TV) by markf · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm watching this on TV right now (cnn.com still not responding). Some of the initial details have changed:

    - Not a 767, an Airbus A-300 (seats around 300 people)
    - It was American Airlines flight 587; /leaving/ JFK for Dominican Rep.
    - The crash site is a residential/shopping area (Rockaway Beach Blvd.)
    - FAA issued an advisory saying that there is no indication (yet) of a terrorist attack.
    - Bridges and tunnels in NYC have been closed.

    ------

    --
    --- I shall always be wherever I've been. - Winston Niles Rumfoord
  81. Re:stop crashing by Anarchofascist · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I remember a guy I used to work with. I left the company partially due to his personality.


    He was the picture postcard for onanism [look it up], and would deliberately annoy people in order to get attention. Positive attention, negative attention, outright hatred and abuse, he didn't care, as long as someone acknowledged his presence.


    I think that's the kind of person we're dealing with here.

    --
    Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
  82. BBC Live in QuickTime by benad · · Score: 1

    You can get live streaming video from BBC Live in QuickTime.
    Almost no packet loss... for now...

    - Benad

  83. Yahoo! Spelling suffers from.. by andr0meda · · Score: 1

    The Yahoo blurb reads out:


    The plane crashed shortly after 9 a.m. and thick, black smoke could be scene in televised reports.


    Even I make spelling errors, but I think this kind of news should be thoughtfully brought to the public, rather than quickly jotted down.

    --
    With great power comes great electricity bills.
  84. more from CNN (since it's being /.ed) by deander2 · · Score: 2, Redundant

    NEW YORK (CNN) -- Queens police confirm an aircraft crashed Monday in the Far Rockaways neighborhood of the New York City borough.

    The spokesman could not confirm the type of plane but said it crashed in the Rockaways at 122nd Street and Rockaway Beach Boulevard.

    WCBS-TV reported that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said it was an American Airlines 767 presumably on approach to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York. The station showed pictures of a huge plume of smoke.

    karma already @ 50 - not trying to be a whore so relax...

    1. Re:more from CNN (since it's being /.ed) by deander2 · · Score: 2

      WTF?!? Why is this redundant?

      I don't get it. Moderators can be real stupid sometimes. What we need 10x more moderator points given out each day, each worth .1 points. That way you get a better distribution and the effects of stupid people are averaged out more. (assuming that the average is non-stupid, but who knows...)

  85. BBC new report by bigjames · · Score: 1

    BBC news site report doesn't add much:

    Passenger jet crashes in New York An American Airlines flight on its way to John F Kennedy airport has crashed in New York. At least four buildings in the Rockaway Beach area of the city's borough of Queens are on fire. It is not known why the aircraft crashed or how many people were on board, or in the buildings now ablaze. New York Mayor Rudolph Guiliani is on his way to the crash site and has called a level one alert. There is no indication at the moment that the crash is anything other than an accident. The weather was crystal clear when the plane - thought to be a Boeing 767 - went down. Both towers of the World Trade Center in New York were destroyed on 11 September after 767s were flown into them. All three airports serving New York - JFK, Newark and La Guardia - are now closed. The Dow index dropped 200 points on hearing the news.
  86. Try cnnfn.com, it's on a different server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't take the same full blast of traffic that the main site takes.

  87. US News Sites still up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  88. NPR says: by imrdkl · · Score: 2

    Details are sketchy, but WNYC (back online!) reports at least 4 buildings on fire, and some concern that there is a gasoline station in the vicinity. Crashsite is an suburban neighborhood, homes, schools, etc. Capacity of the plane is 285 souls.

  89. "Just a plane crash" by scumdamn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A friend of mine just said "Isn't is horrible that we can now think 'I hope it was just a plane crash' when something like this happens?"

    From the location of the crash and proximity to the airport it looks like it might have just been an accident. If not, then it is yet another nail in the terrorist's coffins.

    1. Re:"Just a plane crash" by debrain · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      And another nail into the coffin of American civil liberties.

    2. Re:"Just a plane crash" by karlm · · Score: 1
      Yes, it was very near JFK, but the plane was very late taking off.


      If it was a time bomb, it's a shame it didn't go off a touch earlier while the plane was on the ground. It doesn't take that much damage to take a plane out of the air. The same ammount of damage on the ground could have allowed some people to escape.

      --
      Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
    3. Re:"Just a plane crash" by Tassach · · Score: 1
      It doesn't take that much damage to take a plane out of the air.
      More than you might imagine, as many a B-17 crew will attest. Also look at the incident earlier this year in China. There are numerous accounts of horribly-damaged aircraft managing to limp home and land safely, despite damage so severe that it would never take off again.


      That being said, military aircraft are designed with a lot more redundancy and survivability than civilian airliners. It's becoming aparant that the most dangerous parts of a modern jet airliner are it's fuel tanks. Perhaps it's time for the airline industry to reconsider what kind of planes they need to use. Smaller turboprop or piston-engine aircraft may be slower and less convienient for passengers, but they also carry FAR less fuel and are thus much less dangerous in a crash situation. While it wouldn't be practical to replace big jets for intercontinental flights, it is feasible to use non-jet aircraft for mid-length domestic flights.


      Turboprops and piston-engine planes have the further advantage of being a lot greener than jets. They are much more fuel efficient for one. They are quieter, resulting in less noise pollution. They require shorter runways, reducing airfield cost. Perhaps most importantly they fly at lower altitudes, helping to reduce high-altitude pollution, which is FAR more harmful to the ozone layer than ground-level pollution.


      With commercial aircraft having a 20+ year service life, this isn't a short-term solution. But it is possible in the long-term if the FAA were to adopt appropriate regulations -- restricting jets to N-mile and over-water trips, for example. It is an idea worth consideration

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  90. More info coming in... by boy_afraid · · Score: 1

    It is not an inbound flight, but rather an outbound to the Dominican Republic. An eye witness describes the explosion where the wing meets the body of the plane, the armpit where the wing meets. The explosion does not seem to appear in or by the engine. Please standby for more information.

    Prayer: Please, GOD, please don't let this be another one.

  91. Re:*Leap* by Ubi_UK · · Score: 5, Insightful

    " Airplane crash == terrorist attack"

    Excuse me but that is just plain bullshit.
    It is actually quite normal for planes to crash every now and then, therefore it is most likely to be an accident.

    However, through your statement all you are doing is spreading fear. Simply by doing that you are *helping* terrorists, as spreading fear is (by definition) their main objective.

    Stay cool. The chance of getting hit by a terrorist attack is smaller than the chance of getting hit by a 4WD because the driver was so afraid of being hit by a terrorist that he/she was not paying attention.

  92. Re:*Leap* by cjpez · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    Argh. It's not an either-or situation. There are solutions in-between bombing and doing nothing. Of course doing nothing isn't going to work, but neither is bombing the hell out of Afghanistan.

    That's the one thing I really dislike about this whole thing. Anyone who says something even vaguely against the war effort is accused of advocating pacifism and letting terrorists walk all over us. There are other ways, people!

  93. Mindless Speculation by Jetson · · Score: 2, Redundant

    This is yet again proof of why chat groups, bulletin boards and internet newsgroups are useless as a "breaking story" news source. It's been less than 45 minutes since the crash and already people are posting "facts" that were proven wrong minutes later or are providing mindless speculation. I'll grant you that CNN isn't much better in the first hour of any major story, but at least on TV the incorrect data doesn't stick around for days after the truth is known.

    What you've said so far: It was a 767. It was inbound to NY. It crashed downtown. It might have been terrorists.

    What CNN is saying as of a minute ago: It was an Airbus A300. It was leaving NY on an international flight. It crashed 10 miles from the airport, out in Rockaway (Long Island).

    Let's leave the journalism to the journalists, shall we?

    1. Re:Mindless Speculation by Oztun · · Score: 2

      Actually there were several links posted pointing people to the facts. I was able to tell what was true and what wasn't rather quickly. It looks like you were as well.

      Sure there was misinformation but thats normal when you get a group of people together. Doesn't matter if they are face to face or posting to a newsgroup.

      If I hadn't come to Slashdot this morning I might not of found out about this story till afternoon. I'm happy Slashdot post news.

    2. Re:Mindless Speculation by bmj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is yet again proof of why chat groups, bulletin boards and internet newsgroups are useless as a "breaking story" news source.

      sorry...this is why they _are_ useful...they simply mirror the news, and given that i can't reach most news sites at this time, i at least can pick through the *facts* and try and figure out what's going on.....

      What you've said so far: It was a 767. It was inbound to NY. It crashed downtown. It might have been terrorists.

      check what the news outlets were saying when it first happened...hmmm...looks about the same...

      What CNN is saying as of a minute ago: It was an Airbus A300. It was leaving NY on an international flight. It crashed 10 miles from the airport, out in Rockaway (Long Island).

      hmmm...looks like i can find the same info here.....

      --
      Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. --Ludwig Wittgenstein
    3. Re:Mindless Speculation by daoine · · Score: 1
      This is yet again proof of why chat groups, bulletin boards and internet newsgroups are useless as a "breaking story" news source. It's been less than 45 minutes since the crash and already people are posting "facts" that were proven wrong minutes later

      While I agree with your point that there is a lot of absurd speculation going on, a lot of people are probably using slashdot as a source for information. Very few people have a TV at work, and a lot of the websites are flooded. People are posting facts as they pop up -- just because they are later proved untrue doesn't reflect poorly on the poster, it reflects on the information available at the time.

      And, if the plane crashed in Queens, then techinically it did crash in NYC.

      /rant.

    4. Re:Mindless Speculation by nanospook · · Score: 1

      The news just repeats the same thing over and over.... on slashdot, at least you get mounds of interesting wild speculation and people willing to bet 100 bucks on anything!

      --
      Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
    5. Re:Mindless Speculation by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Maybe if your journalists could get THEIR goddamn facts straight, we wouldn't have so much misinformation floating about?

      --
      It's been a long time.
  94. Summing It all Up by blazerw11 · · Score: 2

    An American Airlines Jet, probably an Airbus, was headed to the Dominican Republic and ran into some kind of trouble after takeoff. It tried to return to the airport, but could not make. Maybe an engine exploded or was on fire. FAA does NOT believe it was a terroist attack or any kind of hijacking.

    --
    A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
    1. Re:Summing It all Up by compugeek007 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      bet you $100 it was a bomb in cargo area

      --
      Jesse Wolfe Sr. Manager Systems Integration
    2. Re:Summing It all Up by blazerw11 · · Score: 2

      One more note, the plane crashed on takeoff according to CNN.

      --
      A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
  95. Re:*Leap* by mrogers · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Not to open a can of worm here, but neither does doing nothing. I'd rather go after the guy who did it than not.

    Given that neither reaction nor inaction will prevent further attacks, which is the better course to take? Consider these points:

    • Which course will polarise world opinion, leading previously moderate people to support radical organisations? (Clue: look at Pakistan.)
    • Which course will kill innocent people abroad, in addition to those who have already died in the US? (Clue: look at Afghanistan.)
    • Which course will perpetuate a cycle of violence and be used to justify further attacks? (Clue: look at the Balkans, Northern Ireland, Israel and Palestine.)
    Is your desire to feel like you're doing something worth the consequences?
  96. The BBC are reporting by joe_fish · · Score: 1
    The website is dead, but on the radio:
    Summary:

    American airlines Airbus A300.
    Flying from JFK to the dominican republic
    Between 5-10 miles out of JFK, over Queens
    At least 4 buildings on fire.
    All 3 airports in NY now closed.
    No news on accident/terrorist

  97. Re:Strong Reason to be Late to Work in the Morning by alexjohns · · Score: 1

    Well, maybe it would be safer not to fly, but this seems to have crashed in or near apartments, so if you had stayed home late this morning, well, work might have been a safer place today. I guess it's time to buy an old copper mine somewhere.

  98. props to slashdot by tdye · · Score: 2

    You guys are up no matter what... thanks for some consise info.

    For you europeans out there, sky.co.uk is MIA now, as is the BBC's site.

    Good luck getting info... maybe try IRC.openprojects.org #worldtradecenter. That's where I am.

    -spool32

    1. Re:props to slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      props to slashdot [,] You guys are up no matter what...

      Are you insane? The database crashed 20 minutes after the plane did. Flat mode, no comments.
      Slashdot has done a great job of covering high-bandwidth events, but let's make sure we're accurate and unbiased. The server has gone tits-up and crashed under the load, every time. We do, however, still get to read Rob's comments.

    2. Re:props to slashdot by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 1

      that reminds me; anyone know the details behind /. infrastructure? what are they running, who they colo with, what type of bandwidth they require to handle the load etc...?

  99. Slashdot shouldn't report news... by pioneer · · Score: 1

    You shouldn't report news on slashdot because 1) that's not the purpose and 2) you often get it wrong and spread misinformation.

    You can argue that the news sites are down, but that's better than spreading misinformation.

    1. Re:Slashdot shouldn't report news... by Anarchofascist · · Score: 1
      You shouldn't report news on slashdot because 1) that's not the purpose and 2) you often get it wrong and spread misinformation.

      On the other hand, (1a) Slashdot has some excellent servers that don't seem to go down when the news sites go down, and (1b) Slashdot is a conversation, started by the editors, on whatever Nerds [like moi] are interested in [ie. "News for Nerds"]. Judging solely on the number of comments on the various New York stories, Nerds are Interested.

      As for (2), yes, we all know slashdot spreads rumors. We are also smart enough to know the reports are unsubstantiated. But most comments (well, most of them above -1 anyway) don't report rumours as information, they just state "X says Y, and based on the evidence I think Z" which makes sense for me.

      As for me - as soon as I heard something was going on, I leapt straight for slashdot and I'm sure a lot of other people did the same.

      --
      Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
    2. Re:Slashdot shouldn't report news... by CokeBear · · Score: 2
      Slashdot should absoloutely be reporting news. This falls under the category of "Stuff That Matters".

      When shit happens, I want to know about it. The incompetent boobs running CNN's website don't know how to handle something like this. Thank CmdrTaco for a website like this, that not only can get the news directly to my brain, but also allow for all of us to be reporters and share what we find out, when we get more info.

      --
      Reality has a liberal bias
    3. Re:Slashdot shouldn't report news... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

      Yea they should.

      It's right there in the logo - 'News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.'

      I'm a nerd and it's news, so /. is within it's charter there.

      On Sept 10th...no this wouldn't be 'stuff that matters' to a Geek crowd, but now it is. Geeks travel, and when something else happens that has the potential to disrupt the entire world of business travellers, it's stuff that matters.

    4. Re:Slashdot shouldn't report news... by Debillitatus · · Score: 1
      This is completely and totally wrong. First of all, the only reason that I heard of this in the first place was /., because all of the web news sites were down. Of course, I didn't know anything was up at all until I actually saw something on /.

      Second, I definitely got useful information from /. long before I got it from anywhere. Since I have people in Queens, it was very important to me to know exactly where the plane had gone down. I could get none of this information from any news websites, but I got it from a early post.

      Now, of course, the information one gets in /. posts is a bit less reliable than that from CNN, but, so? Obviously the 50 messages talking about whether or not it was terrorism were content-free, but there is certainly a possibility to get facts out to the public in such a forum. You have the chance of spreading misinformation, but anyone who blindly believes everything they hear on /. deserves to be misinformed, frankly.

      --

      Come on, give it up, that's

  100. the plane: by 2MuchC0ffeeMan · · Score: 2, Informative

    the plane ...
    linky linky"

    --
    Runnin' On Empty .... I'm Still Alive
  101. Coverage by Exmet+Paff+Daxx · · Score: 2, Informative

    CNN may be down but the Washington Post is up and has a photo.

    Abcnews.go.com appears to be down.

    MSNBC is up with coverage.

    --
    If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
  102. Newssites quickly went to light - Dow-Jones faster by Ranglefant · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Notice that this time the newssites was _very_ quick on going to a light version of their pages.

    They have obviously learned from prior experiences.

    Dow Jones however dropped 200 points faster than any newssite could update their pages. Consider the impact on US-airtraffic.
    Wonder how much time it will take until someone goes bankrupt and wether it will be a US or some other national agency that drops first.

    Rangle

  103. Many thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Thanks for the quick coverage. I only have internet access right now, and the standard media links are rather static in comparision.

    I also have friends and relatives who are travelling today, and was worried about them until I saw the reports here.

    Once again, I thank you.

  104. Re:JHC.... not again. by gimple · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's Shakespeare.

    Julius Ceasar Act III Scene i:

    "Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war,
    That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
    With carrion men, groaning for burial."

    It is Athony's speech after Ceasar is killed. As you can see in the rest of the phrase it is about revenge for a "foul deed."

  105. sites which still work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    http://www.chicagotribune.com works
    http://www.latimes.com works

  106. Streaming audio of BBC News radio by MeerCat · · Score: 1

    if you have IE (yeah, I know) you can get the BBC News coverage - this stayed up all 11/9 for me, and I'm listening to it now....

    T

    --
    I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. - George Best
    1. Re:Streaming audio of BBC News radio by MeerCat · · Score: 1

      Forgot to say, right-click on any toolbar to choose to view the "Radio" toolbar, and then look for a decent radio station near you....

      BBC News is interviewing eye witnesses now...

      T

      --
      I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. - George Best
  107. My reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone else have the same horrible initial reaction to this I did? "Whew, just an engine explosion! What a relief!"

    1. Re:My reaction by The_Unforgiven · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's such a horrible reaction, since a terrorist crash would likely indicate more to follow. A mechanical failure only affects one plane.

      Either is a horrible event, but there is the lesser of the two evils.

      --
      http://wsulug.org
  108. Economy by jezreel · · Score: 1
    --
    0 001 11 1
    1. Re:Economy by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      I am not an economist...but it's Slashdot...so lets pretend...

      My personal feeling about pulling out of a market after something like this is...there is no telling what will happen next, so if you have money in a market, it's better to pull it out and stick it in Bonds or T-Bills than to let the market have it's way with you.

      Another reason for a drop in the DAX or a foriegn market is...Airbus lost a plane, I don't know but I bet Airbus is on the DAX, so whenever a plane maker loses a commercial jet (but not a military one) the stock drops, then related stocks like insurance companies and engine makers drop...thus bringing a whole bunch of sectors down. And once a sector drops, a whole index can go in the crapper.

    2. Re:Economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i work for a trading house and just to clear the air about that, the at the time that the plane crash was made public the market was already down around 130 points. this morning's news was already predicting a market slide due to bad earnings, job cuts, etc...a typical day on the street in that respect. the crash just made it worse. -- side note -- i pray that the Lord will be with all of those involved in the crash. you should too.

  109. Frustrating by aprentic · · Score: 4, Troll

    Why do so many people seem to think that not attacking Afghanistan means "doing nothing"?
    We have alot of options besides engaging in inapropriate military action.
    Why inapropriate? Donald Rumsfeld said that we're unlikely to catch Bin Laden. Many members of the Taliban are no longer in the Taliban and will never be caught. Besides all of these peopl already invaded Afghanistan. Neither Bin Laden nor the Taliban are Afghani. We are bombing innocent civilians who happened to have the misfortune of being invaded by people who attacked the US as well.

    1. Re:Frustrating by shomon2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, it's frustrating. Especially cos no-one will listen to you, or anyone else advocating peace on bulletin boards. This is mass hysteria, and it's not easy to stop. Like a bad case of road rage that's slowly escalating in your street, and your children are playing out there too, but there's nothing you can do inside the house shouting. Then they pull out guns. An angry crowd forms. You keep shouting "bla bla bla, fighting is wrong". They can't hear you.

      You have to go outside. That's real pacifism.

      Ale

    2. Re:Frustrating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither Bin Laden nor the Taliban are Afghani

      The Taliban are Afghani. Where have you been getting your news? And who modded this up, anyways?

    3. Re:Frustrating by Trejus · · Score: 1

      Uh huh, "we have alot of options besides enganging in inapropriate military action."

      If there are so many options, why havent' you recommended any? I'll give a few i can think of:
      remove all the muslims from the united states. Oh wait that's really stupid and against what the US stands for.
      Econonmic sanctions? umm what economy, there isn't any thing we we can to do afganistan to make it's economy worse
      sit by and wait for bin laden to attack again so we can have people like you telling us we have a bunch of optoins. Oh wait, we already did that.

      Frankly, i don't see anything else that we can do to reduce the power of Bin laden and other wanna be terrorists like him other than try to destory their military arsenals and reduce their cash funds, both of which are going two require some amount of military force. Sorry, but "can't we all just get along" does not work in the real world

      --
      "To save the planet, I had to go to the worst spot on Earth, and that was Philadelphia." -- Sun Ra
    4. Re:Frustrating by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

      Why do so many people seem to think that not attacking Afghanistan means "doing nothing"?

      Because anything that does not involve engaging the enemy where he is amounts exactly to "doing nothing." But I suppose as an alternative we can talk it over with Osama - he seems a reasonable guy - we may even "bring peace with honour" and "peace for our time."

      we have alot of options besides engaging in inapropriate military action.

      For instance? My answer is to engage in *apropriate* military action - which fortunately is the option that is being taken.

      Why inapropriate? Donald Rumsfeld said that we're unlikely to catch Bin Laden...

      That's O.K. I don't think the plan is to *catch* him. I think the emphasis in "dead or alive" was "dead." Besides even if we don't killing a large number of people in his organisation & it's allies and subsidiaries is MUCH more important than simply killing him. We are already having success in this regard: Harkat Jihad-i-Islami acknowledged that 85 members have been killed in air raids around Mazar-i-Sharif and Harakat-ul-Mojahedin acknowledged the deaths of 22 members mostly middle tier leaders when we bombed a "civillian" house in a residential neighborhood where they were attending a meeting (apparently the quality of information from our spies has gotten better) The Taliban no doubt took al Jazeera & CNN cameras to that house to decry the death of "innocent civillians". Al Queada and the Taliban are not as forthcoming about their own casualties but the reports are that leadership in both groups have suffered at least some (possibly significant) casualties.

      Many members of the Taliban are no longer in the Taliban...

      Gee I wonder why?

      ...and will never be caught.

      Yes, many will never be caught (or better yet killed) but many others will be. The a war is not only (or even mainly) about catching and/or punishing our enemies but about destroying their organisation and capabilities.

      Besides all of these people already invaded Afghanistan. Neither Bin Laden nor the Taliban are Afgha ni

      You are right on al Queada and half right on the Taliban which is Pashtuns (Pashtunistan straddles the border of Afghanistan & Pakistan) trained in Saudi funded schools. So what is your point? That this is also a war of liberation for Afghanistan? Is that a bad thing?

      We are bombing innocent civilians who happened to have the misfortune of being invaded by people who attacked the US as well.

      So you contend that the US is targetting civilian Afghani's? What is your source for this accusation? The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan? Admittedly innocent civilians are caught in the crossfire but that is very different from being targets which is the implication of your post. We have no real statistics but I would wager tha t Taliban and Arab forces in Afghanistan are sufferring far greater casualties than the civilian population.

      Or is your argument that the civilians casualties are NOT inflicted purposefully (despite the implied accusation of your wording) but ARE inevitable accidents of war. The modern American military is capable of, and apparantly is, waging war with remarkably fewer civillian casualties than any wars in the past. You may argue that such accidental deaths are intolerable and so we must never resort to war. Of course the alternative to war may often involve MORE civillian deaths, especially when one of the combatants (in the now one-sided war) DOES purposefully target civilians (in as large a number as he can) a

    5. Re:Frustrating by mrogers · · Score: 1
      Destroy their military arsenals? Taliban artillery don't threaten the US. The threat comes from terrorists living in the US, using weapons bought in the US.

      Reduce their cash funds? Before you bomb anyone, try regulating the world banking system. (Probably impossible, but if you can't do it you will never stop donations reaching Al Qaeda.)

    6. Re:Frustrating by SpinyNorman · · Score: 2

      bin Laden and al Qai'da are Arabs, not "Afgahni", but the Taliban ARE - they're Pashtun. Pashtunistan was part of Hindustan (now divided up as Afgahnistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and India), and when the Brits divided up Hindustan they divided Pashtunistan into two - part now lies in Afghanistan and part in Pakistan.

      The difference between the Taliban and traditional Pashtun (as in Pakistan) is that the traditional Pashtun are tribal and look to the Khans - feudal lords - as their leaders; the Mullah's or religious clerks do not have a high place in their society.

    7. Re:Frustrating by shani · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Something I wrote in a private e-mail on 2001-11-02:

      What can we do to protect ourselves from terrorism? Well, we could stop bending over and grabbing our ankles to protect the interests of big business for starters. How about we separate the FAA into a government body that is there to foster the airline industry (deferring discussion about whether we really need this body or not) and one that is there to watchdog the industry. No more "cost-benefit analysis" on security, at least, not driven by shareholders

      Dear Airlines:
      Sorry, you can't protect us, we want our elected officials to do that, thank you very much.

      Of course, the real problem is that we do unpopular actions worldwide.We can't make everyone happy, but I don't think we've had a consistent foreign policy since the end of the Cold War (blame this one on Bush the Father, but unfortunately even more on Clinton). We need to stop supporting governments that don't fit American ideals, simply to protect our economic interests (sorry, Saudi Arabia!). We need to take a stand to Israel and withdraw support until they really, truly pull out of the West Bank (sorry, big Jewish lobby!).

      We need to partipate in the world community the same as everybody else. This means paying our U.N. bill (all of it, and not just when we need something from the U.N.). This means signing treaties to submit to the decisions of world justice (like the court that many countries think Osama should be tried under, but the U.S. doesn't recognize). This means signing small arms, land mine, and other treaties, in spite of the cost to our domestic arms business and inconvience to our military, both in Korea as well as when cluster bombing. This means not forcing U.S. exports on countries that don't want them for health, political, or other reasons.

      I'd be more in favor of a War on Isolationism more than a War on Terror. I'd be even more in favor of no more wars on anything.

    8. Re:Frustrating by swordboy · · Score: 2

      Nail on head...

      All that we are doing in Afghanistan is pissing off more people. The people that we are directing this action against are simply giving up and siding with the Northern Alliance. All that are doing is 1) changing their affiliation from "Taliban" to "Nothern Alliance", 2) killing innocent civilians which just makes everyone mad, and 3) wasting money with an average cost of $300k for each bomb dropped.

      I heard the other day that Michigan is having trouble meeting the $1800/day cost to keep the National Guard at the US/Canada border in Detroit. Absolutely hogwash. Cancel one of those bombs and keep them here forever. What about that guy who walked onto a plane last week with a bag full of KNIVES AND TEAR GAS? Who cares, we're bombing Afghanistan and that will sove the problem?

      Sigh...

      --

      Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    9. Re:Frustrating by Wesley+Everest · · Score: 2, Informative
      Hell, given that bombing various countries around the world is the status quo for the U.S., I'd say that bombing the hell out of Afghanistan is doing nothing. Now if we really wanted to do something, we'd be stepping up the bombing to include any country that ever supported Bin Laden.

      That would be Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the U.S., etc...

      Read how Senator Orrin Hatch said supporting Bin Laden was "worth it".

    10. Re:Frustrating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if i remember correctly(and i may not... i reaad this a while ago) Afghanistan's primary export has been poppy, and they have been making most of thier money from the opium trade

    11. Re:Frustrating by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

      The people that we are directing this action against are simply giving up and siding with the Northern Alliance. All that are doing is 1) changing their affiliation from "Taliban" to "Nothern Alliance"

      I wish that was true because if it was it would be an UNQUALIFIED SUCCESS. These "same people" whan they are called "Taliban" won't hand over Al Queada militants in their midst when they are called "Northern Alliance" they will. Since desstroying Al Queada is THE WHOLE POINT that would be a great victory, a stunning success and well worth the cost.

      2) killing innocent civilians which just makes everyone mad,

      Well if that is "all we are doing" we are failing because we have missed some of the civillians we were apparently trying to kill (if I understand you right) and actually killed a very large number of Taliban and Arab militants. That might "make everyone mad" if you define "everyone" as other muslim militants, those easily swayed by propoganda and maybe a few "useful idiots" in the west.

      3) wasting money with an average cost of $300k for each bomb dropped.

      Seems like a bargain to me. The one that killed 22 militant leaders at a meeting was a certainly a bargain and the one that killed another 85 militants was a HUGE bargain.

      I heard the other day that Michigan is having trouble meeting the $1800/day cost to keep the National Guard at the US/Canada border in Detroit. Absolutely hogwash. Cancel one of those bombs and keep them here forever.

      Closing the borders is perhaps a good defensive strategy but the cliche is true that "the best defense is a good offense" if we allow our enemies a haven where they can train, plan & organise no amount of defensive strategy will help us.

      What about that guy who walked onto a plane last week with a bag full of KNIVES AND TEAR GAS?

      Actually despite the unforgivable security failure that let him pass a security check point he was searched and stopped before boarding a plane. There was a security failure in one component and a success in a back-up component (which it should never have come to) but he was caught.

      ...Who cares, we're bombing Afghanistan and that will sove the problem?

      It will not solve the security problems but then again unless we succumb to a complete police state there will always be poor security *somewhere* that is vulnerable to attack - a defensive strategy of merely "increased security" is guaranteed to fail and will sacrifice our civil liberties to boot. The war in Afghanistan WILL solve the problems that allowed Sept 11th to happen. Or more accurately is a NECESSARY component among others that will solve the problem. There will always be terrorists but there doesn't have to be such well organized and effective terrorists. To be so effective they need a haven in which to gather recruits, organise, train and plan free from molestation. Without such havens terrorist organisations tend to be amateurish bunglers more likely to get caught or blow themselves up than seriously damage anyone else. The war in Afghanistan is killing a lot of al Queada members and denying the organisation a haven in which it is free to organise and train. The organisation that exists outside of Afghanistan (but was forged INSIDE Afghanistan) still exists but without a haven it will slowly (or quickly if the other components of the strategy are successful) degrade in organisation and effectiveness until it ceases to be a significant threat or ceases to exist.

    12. Re:Frustrating by matster7 · · Score: 1

      Jee, your statement on Israel and the Jewish question is sooo influenced by mass media its not funny. Maybe we do have a large Jewish lobby. but we have an even bigger arab/muslim controll of the media. Every major network has arabs as head shareholders. Makes you wonder why the media spends 10 seconds when terrorist blow up a family pizzaria on Jerusalaem. And 10 minutes on Israel reclaiming the head PLO office in Jerusalaem in retaliation. Taking back an office vs. deaths what should get more time? But ofcourse the media spends even more time when a Palestinian child gets killed by rubber bullets because his parents are stupid enough to take him to where there are violent protests. Sorry rocks and snipers do kill. Why does a palestinian child getting killed by rubber bullets that are not meant to kill get more time than Israeli children being killed in Pizzarias by bombs that were meant to kill them. You ask why Israel does not withdraw from the West Bank. I answer its because they agreed to do this under certain conditions that the PLO needs to fulfill. The PLO has not done so by far, and then they have the audacity to complain that Israel does not fulfill its end of the bargain. The west bank was won by Israel fair and square in a war not started by them. Remember that.

    13. Re:Frustrating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Closing the borders is perhaps a good defensive strategy but the cliche is true that "the best defense is a good offense" if we allow our enemies a haven where they can train, plan & organise no amount of defensive strategy will help us.

      Do you honestly think that bombing Afghanistan will do jack shit to prevent future terrorist actions against the US? Four months ago your enemies were Sudan, China, North Korea and so on. Now they're not. After the incident at Afghanistan is over, they're bound to be enemies again for whatever reasons (I'm sure something appropriate will come up).

      Bin Laden might be in Mongolia right now! He's not stupid. He was trained by the US intelligence, so he knows how they work.

      All these bombings are aiming to achieve is to get some sort of passageway to vent the frustration of September 11, give nice PR to GWB's government, and to replace one bad government in Afghanistan with another. Kabul wasn't a heaven when it was governed by many different gangs lead by different people (the current Northern Alliance), all fighting for power.

      Dropping food supplies is pathetic... The USA could have achieved more by not dropping so many bombs and giving the money saved to some international organization. There's a famine in the country. A few bright yellow packages with the US flag and some marmalade will not make a difference!

    14. Re:Frustrating by shani · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that the Israelis get a lot of bad press, and the Arabs tend to forget that they are the ones who attacked Israel with a "death to all Jews" policy.

      I also think (and maintained even 5 years ago) that it was foolish to trade land for peace. Once your land is gone, it's gone, but it's trivial for a peace to end.

      Nevertheless, the current breakdown of the peace process was started by the visit of the Israeli president to Palestine. Lets face it, the Jewish "settlement" movement is designed to gain a foothold in Arab territory, and make Israeli pullout in Palestine to complicated to do effectively. I find this a fundamentally dishonest approach to occupation in the Palestine territory, and until Israel commits to ending this policy, I don't know how it can expect the Palestinians to take what they say at face value.

      But killing people is almost always wrong, and the Palestinians had certainly not been mistreated enough to justify terror bombings!

      Your "it's not us, it's them" attitude is exactly the kind of thinking that will keep the violence going forever. Until both sides step back and agree to end the blame game, innocents will continue to die useless, painful deaths. For it's part, the U.S. should not support either side until genuine concessions for peace occur.

    15. Re:Frustrating by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly think that bombing Afghanistan will do jack shit to prevent future terrorist actions against the US?

      Yes,

      Four months ago your enemies were Sudan, China, North Korea and so on.

      These are represive regimes that are commiting horrible atrocities against their own populations and threatening their neighbors, they are regimes that we don't want to see succeed in their policies - in that sense they were before the 11th and remain now if not our enemies, at least our rivals. Despite their atrocities and their hostility these regimes did not commit any act of war against us and so are not in the narrowest sense our enemies as al Queada is. They are not sheltering our active enemies nor have they rejected an ultimatum to cease sheltering those enemies so they have not become our enemies in the way the Taliban has.

      Bin Laden might be in Mongolia right now! He's not stupid.

      That is doubtful since he is more vulnerable when on the move - but you are right: attacking him as we have in Afghanistan is a good way to get him running. If he is in Mongolia he is now in a nation whose police will cooperate with us in arresting him, and the war is succeeding in it's objectives.

      ...He was trained by the US intelligence, so he knows how they work.

      More is made of this than is there - the CIA worked through the Pakistani ISA and mostly targetted their training and aid to Afghani nationals not to Arabs who were largely self-funded. I'm sure bin Laden and his group was the recipient of some CIA funds and perhaps even training on the margins of the program but he was not a creation of the CIA nor was he so intimate with them as to "know how they work"

      (I'll skip by the bit where you reveal that your understanding of government comes from watching the X-Files & Oliver Stone movies) ...and to replace one bad government in Afghanistan with another.

      I hope now that we are paying attention we can help in crafting something a little better. Still, you may be right, but you forgot to add "replace on bad government (which supports & shelters our avowed enemies) with another (that does not)" The United Front may be a bunch of warlords but they are a bunch of warlords who hate al Queada and who are only interested in their own petty conflicts not with spreading a violent, repressive, imperialist religious fundamentalism.

      Dropping food supplies is pathetic.

      Agreed, Swiftly taking Mazar-i-Sharif and other northern border towns is much more important for feeding the starving population of Afghanistan.

      The USA could have achieved more by not dropping so many bombs and giving the money saved to some international organization.

      That depends on what you are trying to achieve - I don't see how feeding the Afghani's stops Al Queada. It certainly didn't stop them before - the United States government has fed more starving Afghani's than any other organisation. Some may argue we didn't give enough (and I would agree) but then why didn't any other nation or muslim charity shame us by giving more? In the long run stepping up our policy of international charity may win us more good will around the world but we have enemies that are actively seeking to kill us RIGHT NOW. Let me rephrase that so you will understand - they want and a planning to kill YOU, we can leave them alone or we can try to stop them.

    16. Re:Frustrating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ever notice that people who use the expression "jack shit" don't know it?

      seems like a good litmus test for morons. maybe we can get them to write it on their foreheads?

  110. full recap by wildcard023 · · Score: 1

    American Airlines reports that it was flight 587, an Airbus 300 that was outbound from JFK to the Dominican Republic, and it crashed about 2 minutes after takeoff© There were 247 passengers and 9 crewmembers©

    From what I've heard it crashed in the Rockaways at 122nd street and Rockaway Beach Boulevard©

    The FAA is saying that there is no indication of terrorism right now©

    The Queens/Midtown tunns are closed, Lincoln outbound is closed until further notice©

    Also, JFK, LaGuardia and Newark airports are closed©

    --
    Mike Nugent
    Programmer/Author
    http://www©illuminatus©org

    --
    -- Mike wildcard@illuminatus.org
  111. NYT article 10:08 EST by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 2


    New York Times, 7:03, 11/12/01:

    November 12, 2001

    Homes in Queens on Fire

    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

    EW YORK -- An American Airlines Airbus A300 crashed Monday morning in the Queens section of New York, and buildings reportedly were on fire in the neighborhood.

    The plane crashed shortly after 9 a.m. and thick, black smoke could be seen miles away.

    All metro area airports were closed following the crash, in the Rockaways section of Queens.

    The mayor canceled his morning events and headed to the scene.

    One eyewitness reported debris falling from sky, and told the Fox News Channel four homes were on fire.

    Another told CNN he was 40 blocks away and saw "Just a lot of smoke. Tons and tons of smoke. You can see emergency vehicles heading to area. Lots of people are standing in the streets. It's very tense."

    The cause of the crash was not immediately known.

    The crash came two months after the attack on the World Trade Center, which was destroyed by two Boeing 767s hijacked out of Boston's Logan Airport. One of the planes was operated by American, the other by United.


    An explanation of how the U.S. got into this mess: What should be the Response to Violence?

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
  112. Nope, it's worse by athmanb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is that simply firing a few billion $ worth of ammunition into the Afghan wastelands does not only accomplish nothing, it actually worsens the situation by driving even more desperate people into the hands of the terrorist groups.

    Unless we start caring about the causes (Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc.) and not simply about the symptoms, we can already mark January 11.

    And if this crash wasn't a terrorist attack, but a simple accident, it changes nothing about the underlying facts.

    1. Re:Nope, it's worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      he problem is that simply firing a few billion $ worth of ammunition into the Afghan wastelands does not only accomplish nothing, it actually worsens the situation by driving even more desperate people into the hands of the terrorist groups.

      Nah, it makes things better for the military-industrial complex. Didn't Ike tell you this?

    2. Re:Nope, it's worse by mcwop · · Score: 1

      If we stop support for Israel, retreat from Saudi Arabia and leave Iraq alone terrorism will not stop. However, if the whole world stops purchasing oil from the region terrorists will be handed over faster that you can say "SNAP!" That is the main source of revenue for the region. Of course then people will be accused of starving rich oilmen's kids in the region.

      --

      "I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

  113. Re:*Leap* by Kilobug · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    What you don't understand is that bombing Afghanistan only creates more kamikazes.

    Just take a real story: Kabul, "normal" family with a mother, a father and 6 children. An US bomb miss (?) its millitary target and destroy their house. The father and 5 children die. The mother lose her mind. The surviving child is 5 years old. All his life, he'll remember his father, brothers and sisters killed by US army. If in 15 years he becomes a terrorist and make a plane crash in NY, you'll know why. Drama like that happen every day in Afghanistan since US start bombing. Each of them create potential kamikazes.

    Hatred create hatred. Violence leads to violence. You can't destroy terrorism with bombs. By killing Afghans you just increase the anti-US hatred in those countries, you give strength to Bin Laden and his friends.

  114. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Taliban had NOTHING to do with what happened on Septermber 11th. Our Government never claimed that they did. The reason that we're bombing the shit out of the Afghan people is because they demanded evidence of Usama Binladen's involvement before they would hand him over. We should have just given them the evidence and been done with it.

    There were years of bloody war against the Soviet Union yet there was never a terrorist incident against Soviet civilians by Afghanis. Our Government has never accused the Taliban of being behind any terrorism.

  115. Fire Department by suwain_2 · · Score: 1
    According to WBZ (Boston), the NYFD is on a "Level 1 Alert", which means that everyone is responding. About five minutes ago, they said there were 44 fire trucks on scene.

    They also said that the firefighters on the scene are the exact same ones that were at the WTC just over two months ago.

    --
    ________________________________________________
    suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
    1. Re:Fire Department by tdye · · Score: 2

      They'd have to be... the only quick response teams left are the ones who lived through WTC.

  116. what is a knee jerk post? by kipple · · Score: 1

    [sorry for bothering you here, couldn't figure it out by myself].
    non-english speaker, so knee jerk makes little sense to me.

    thanks

    --
    -- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
    1. Re:what is a knee jerk post? by jayhawk88 · · Score: 1

      knee-jerk=reactionary. As in, we don't want moderate up posts that are people obviously speaking before thinking.

    2. Re:what is a knee jerk post? by sacherjj · · Score: 1

      knee-jerk is having a reaction without any thought or control. It is in reference to a doctor testing your reaction by hitting the muscle in the front of your leg with his rubber hammer and causing your knee to jerk.

    3. Re:what is a knee jerk post? by kipple · · Score: 1

      thanks. I appreciated.

      --
      -- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
  117. 246 passengers, 9 crew possibly aboard by RedX · · Score: 2

    NBC is reporting that 246 people were ticketed for this flight along with 9 crewmembers. No telling how many people were in the vicinity on the ground, I imagine this part of the Queens is quite densely populated.

  118. PLEASE: Cut & Paste articles under this thread by Abnornymous+Howard · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Please cut and paste articles since the websites will die one after the other. Thnx.

  119. Video stream? by elvstone · · Score: 1

    Does anyone have a videostream on a line that can take the slashdot effect? Would be nice for us without Cable/American TV.

  120. 256 People On Board by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ABC News says that there were 256 people on board. 247 passengers, 9 crew members.

    FAA says no indications that it's terrorist-related.

  121. Re:JHC.... not again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool, thanks... ive never read much Shakespeare, but i appreciate a good statement like that.

  122. More news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From robots.cnn.com

    "The Pentagon said surveillance f(l)ights were going on in the area and nothing unusual had been spotted."

    Mechanical failure?

  123. Re:*Leap* by GregWebb · · Score: 2

    I'm not sure which way I jump on this issue (honestly), so I'm only presenting options here. However...

    Large quantities of the Muslim world are currently convinced that the USA and UK are out to destroy Islam and are just using this as a pretext. So, by attacking Afghanistan, we're currently providing a motivation for them to join organisations like al Quaeda (sp?) and increasing the available pool of terrorists. As a direct consequence of our attacking them, it's easier for them to attack us. Had we not attacked them (whether you believe it's justified retaliation or not), they'd have a smaller volunteer pool.

    I have no sympathy with terrorism but I can see why people might be motivated this way.

    BTW, there's also the other question of whether the current campaign can ever achieve its aims, even if they're clearly defined. I can't see that it can achieve what people want it to, or that the aims are nailed down particularly tightly...

    --

    Greg

    (Inside a nuclear plant)
    Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!

  124. 246 Passengers and 9 crew on board by Andy_R · · Score: 2

    Quote from CNN: "The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said the plane was carrying 246 passengers and nine crew members. "

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  125. More from CNN - 255 on board by gotroot801 · · Score: 1

    November 12, 2001 Posted: 10:06 AM EST (1506 GMT)

    NEW YORK (CNN) -- An American Airlines jet with 255 people on board crashed Monday on takeoff from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport.

    The plane went down at 9:17 a.m. EST in the Rockways section of the New York City borough of Queens, about five miles from Kennedy Airport.

    CNN confirmed the plane was American Airlines Flight 587 from New York to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. The plane was a Boeing Airbus A300. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said the plane was carrying 246 passengers and nine crew members.

    Asked if terrorism was suspected, Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Bill Schumann said, "All options are open at this time. We have very limited information."

    The Pentagon said surveillance fights were going on in the area and nothing unusual had been spotted.

    At least four houses were on fire, and a huge plume of smoke could be seen rising from the site. The New York Fire Department dispatched 44 firetrucks and 200 firefighters to the scene.

    All three New York City-area airports -- Kennedy, LaGuardia and Newark -- closed after the crash, along with all the city's bridges and tunnels. Mayor Rudy Giuliani declared a Level One emergency, mobilizing all available police, fire and emergency personnel.

  126. CNN Article November 12, 2001 Posted: 1506 GMT by g0rath · · Score: 1

    NEW YORK (CNN) -- An American Airlines jet with 255 people on board crashed Monday on takeoff from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport.

    The plane went down at 9:17 a.m. EST in the Rockways section of the New York City borough of Queens, about five miles from Kennedy Airport.

    CNN confirmed the plane was American Airlines Flight 587 from New York to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. The plane was a Boeing Airbus A300. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said the plane was carrying 246 passengers and nine crew members.

    Asked if terrorism was suspected, Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Bill Schumann said, "All options are open at this time. We have very limited information."

    The Pentagon said surveillance fights were going on in the area and nothing unusual had been spotted.

    At least four houses were on fire, and a huge plume of smoke could be seen rising from the site. The New York Fire Department dispatched 44 firetrucks and 200 firefighters to the scene.

    All three New York City-area airports -- Kennedy, LaGuardia and Newark -- closed after the crash, along with all the city's bridges and tunnels. Mayor Rudy Giuliani declared a Level One emergency, mobilizing all available police, fire and emergency personnel.

  127. CNN up with preliminary numbers by daoine · · Score: 4, Informative

    * American Airlines flight crashes on takeoff in NYC borough of Queens
    * FAA: American Flight 587 -- Airbus A300 -- from JFK airport to Santa Domingo, Dominican Republic
    * NYC Port Authority: 246 passengers, 9 crew
    * All NYC area airports closed, bridges and tunnels leading into city closed
    * Affiliate WCBS reports at least 4 buildings on fire
    * New York Fire Department dispatches 44 trucks, 200 firefighters

  128. more from CNN (since it's being /.ed) by deander2 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    American Airlines jet crashes in New York
    November 12, 2001 Posted: 10:06 AM EST (1506 GMT)

    Smoke rises Monday morning from the crash site in Queens, New York.

    NEW YORK (CNN) -- An American Airlines jet with 255 people on board crashed Monday on takeoff from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport.

    The plane went down at 9:17 a.m. EST in the Rockways section of the New York City borough of Queens, about five miles from Kennedy Airport.

    CNN confirmed the plane was American Airlines Flight 587 from New York to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. The plane was a Boeing Airbus A300. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said the plane was carrying 246 passengers and nine crew members.

    Asked if terrorism was suspected, Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Bill Schumann said, "All options are open at this time. We have very limited information."

    The Pentagon said surveillance fights were going on in the area and nothing unusual had been spotted.

    At least four houses were on fire, and a huge plume of smoke could be seen rising from the site. The New York Fire Department dispatched 44 firetrucks and 200 firefighters to the scene.

    All three New York City-area airports -- Kennedy, LaGuardia and Newark -- closed after the crash, along with all the city's bridges and tunnels. Mayor Rudy Giuliani declared a Level One emergency, mobilizing all available police, fire and emergency personnel.

    karma already @ 50 - not trying to be a whore here so don't worry...

  129. Re:Newssites quickly went to light - Dow-Jones fas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sabena and Swiss Air are already there.

  130. The People On Board by Cheesy_Poof_Man · · Score: 1

    246 Passengers 9 Crew on board the flight.

  131. Propagation of news by Manes · · Score: 1

    As always, I'm puzzled at the speed of which news like this spreads.

    Tragic as it is, I am somewhat intrigued by the how big news like this spreads on the internet - 10 years ago I would have learned about something like the wtc-incident in the local news the day after or on the national television. Now i heard about the crash 5 minutes after it happened, and then we learned about everything through irc and the heavily dos'ed newssites almost realtime as it happened.

    Also, i see that there are tons of rumours, like the comments to this article shows, there are enormous amounts of hearsay and false newsitems, making it more important than ever before to filter out the 'real' stuff.

    How do you all experience the internet as used to spread information on topics like this?

    My symphaties to those involved in this latter (hopefully) accident.

    1. Re:Propagation of news by Drizzten · · Score: 1

      What I find interesting is that I first heard about the crashes on 9/11 through office word of mouth...just like this current one. "Did you hear? There was another crash, this time in Queens." Eh? Then the scramble to find a news website that will hold up. And once again, I had to turn to /.

      --

      "All mankind is at the mercy of a handful of neurotics". - Norman Douglas
  132. No idea on the cause, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One off-the-cuff speculation, if this WAS terrorism, and we have idea if it was.....get ready for some serious retaliation.

  133. Re:Foxnews is reporting that it was an Airbus 300. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Move along. Nothing to see here.

    possibly ~250 passengers as well as more on the ground have just perished, and there is nothing to be concerned about!? Even if this is just a mechanical failure and not a terrorist hijacking, it is still important!

  134. cnn article as of 9:40 a.m. ET by k2r · · Score: 1

    American jetliner crashes
    November 12, 2001: 9:40 a.m. ET

    Crash of Airbus leaving New York's JFK airport is first crash since Sept. 11.

    NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - American Airlines Flight 587, an Airbus A300 jetliner, crashed near New York's Kennedy International Airport just after 9 a.m. Monday as it was leaving JFK for Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, according to the FAA.

    Details of the crash, including cause or the condition of people on the plane and the ground, were not immediately available. At least four buildings were reported on fire.

    A large cloud of thick black smoke was visible from miles away following the crash. Local news broadcasters in New York were quoting witnesses as saying there was an explosion on the plane before the crash.

    The crash, which occurred in the Rockaways section of Queens at 122nd and Rockaway Beach Blvd, is the first involving a U.S. airliner since the Sept. 11 terrorist attack that brought down four jets. That attack prompted a shutdown in the nation's air traffic system and sharply decreased demand for air travel by the public.

    American Airlines officials had no immediate comment.

    All three New York area airports - JFK, LaGuardia and Newark - were closed following the crash as were all New York City area bridges and tunnels.

  135. So do I fly? by Quaryon · · Score: 1

    So, I'm about to leave the office en-route to Heathrow for a flight to JFK in a few hours time - would you fly? (that's assuming that the flight will be going ahead, which it may not..)

    Serious question folks..

    Q.

    1. Re:So do I fly? by k2r · · Score: 1


      I don't think that you will be able to fly within the next hours.

      k2r

    2. Re:So do I fly? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      I'd fly. But the question is, will the US Airspace be open for international flights?

      Will NYC be open for flights?

      Seriously, plan on going, but take an extra book or DVD for the laptop, you might get to spend some time at Gander or on a train down from Boston.

    3. Re:So do I fly? by tomknight · · Score: 2
      Why wouldn't you fly?


      Serrious question. Yes, really. Planes are safe, full stop. You've still more chance of winning the lottery than dieing in one.


      Tom.

      --
      Oh arse
    4. Re:So do I fly? by provolt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hell Yes!!!

      Air travel is as safe as it gets. Even with the terrorist activity you are MUCH more likely to be in a car crash, or hit a deer, or trip and break your collar bone, than you are to be involved in a deadly crash on an aircraft.

      SO YES!!! FLY!!! If you value your safety, you will not drive long distances when you can just as easily take a flight. Plus you'll be saving yourself tons of time. (Ok, so from Heathrow, you'd have to take a boat, but do you really want to take that long? And would it really be safer?)

    5. Re:So do I fly? by Quaryon · · Score: 1

      Well, looks like I'm going now anyway - Airline says we should check in..

      Why not? Because although my head syas it's fine, my gut is telling me I should be scared and my girlfriend is unhappy..

      Q.

    6. Re:So do I fly? by myschae · · Score: 1

      Seriously. Yes. Can't live your life afraid of your own shadow and by and large it's safe.

      However, I don't think you're going anywhere today - looks like all the airports are closed.

      Mys

    7. Re:So do I fly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've still more chance of winning the lottery than dieing in one.

      I haven't heard of anyone dying in a lottery. Do you mean Russian roulette?

    8. Re:So do I fly? by fishbowl · · Score: 2

      >Planes are safe, full stop.

      Not flying on planes is safer than flying on them.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    9. Re:So do I fly? by gorilla · · Score: 2

      Not if the alternative is to use more dangerous methods of transit. If you drive instead of flying, you are increasing your risk.

    10. Re:So do I fly? by NineNine · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. You have control over how/where/when you drive. You have zero control over terrorists getting onto a plane. Averages are not that simple.

    11. Re:So do I fly? by Quaryon · · Score: 1

      For anyone who is interested I'm now in NYC - my plane was delayed two hours but that's all..

      I decided I couldn't think of a rational reason not to go, only irrational ones.

      Q.

    12. Re:So do I fly? by tomknight · · Score: 2
      I guess you'd better avoid gouing to work then, someone's going to crash a plane ino your building?

      Tom.

      --
      Oh arse
  136. CNN says USAF airborne at time of crash by bigjames · · Score: 1

    CNN now reporting:

    DEVELOPING STORY
    U.S. Air Force officials tell CNN that fighter jets were airborne over New York at time of crash.

    1. Re:CNN says USAF airborne at time of crash by Jburkholder · · Score: 2

      yeah, but from what I understand, they are flying continuous CAP over Manhattan now anyway. Not sure that means that they were alerted somehow to some situation with the AA flight.

    2. Re:CNN says USAF airborne at time of crash by Halo- · · Score: 1

      I've flown in and out of Newark 4 times since the 11th. This last flight (on Friday afternoon) The pilot pointed out an AWACS flying perpendicular to us. Cool. It did seem that security was a bit higher than before at Newark too.

  137. Slashdot at least works as a tool for correct info by FirstNoel · · Score: 1

    It may not be a "real" news site, But it doesn't crash like CNN/MSNBC....

    The info may not be the most accurate for the first 15-20 minutes...but eventually the real info starts emerging once people start coming together.

    I give /. props just for the fact it tells us atleast something when we have no other access.

    Thanks, ./!

    Sean D.

    --
    "Hmm. I am to metaphor cheese as metaphor cheese is to transitive verb crackers!"
  138. Re:islam is a plauge, it cant coexist anywhere ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it should read "religious fundamentalism" of any flavor.

    they all suck.

  139. Re:Newssites quickly went to light - Dow-Jones fas by tdye · · Score: 2

    Several European national carriers are bankrput or on the edge of it.

  140. More buildings on fire ... by Augusto · · Score: 2

    12 Buildings on fire now.

    --

    - sigs are for wimps.
    1. Re:More buildings on fire ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my love, its like a building, which is on fire....

  141. Bird in the engine. by Gannoc · · Score: 2, Funny
    If it indeed turns out that the plane crashed from a bird flying into the engine, we must react with swift and deadly force. No longer can birds, or the countries that tolerate their presence, hide from the justice they deserve.

    Thank you, and God bless America.

    1. Re:Bird in the engine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahah gave me a nice laugh :) MOD THIS UP. though not everyone will like it i think.

    2. Re:Bird in the engine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks. I just spit coffee at my monitor.

    3. Re:Bird in the engine. by imadork · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'd mod you up if there was a (+1, tasteless) option!

    4. Re:Bird in the engine. by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

      christ... no offense to you, imadork, but... someone actually wasted a mod point on imadork's comment? how pathetic.

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
  142. Pentagon: No unusual activity reported... by Nerftoe · · Score: 2, Redundant
    From robots.cnn.com:

    • American Airlines flight crashes on takeoff in NYC borough of Queens
    • FAA: American Flight 587 -- Airbus A300 -- from JFK airport to Santa Domingo, Dominican Republic
    • NYC Port Authority: 246 passengers, 9 crew
    • All NYC area airports closed, bridges and tunnels leading into city closed
    • Affiliate WCBS reports at least 4 buildings on fire
    • New York Fire Department dispatches 44 trucks, 200 firefighters
    • The Pentagon said surveillance fights in the area; no unusual activity reported
  143. Re:*Leap* by FatRatBastard · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Anyone who says something even vaguely against the war effort is accused of advocating pacifism and letting terrorists walk all over us.

    Talk about putting words in mouth... The post said that bombing Afghanistan didn't make us safe. Well, duh.. I don't think anyone thought that bombing afghanistan made us safe. That's comparing apples to oranges. Looking at airport security might make us safer... bombing Afghanistan might produce the number one suspect.

    To paraphrase... Anyone who says something even vaguely for getting bin Laden is accused of advocating war mongering.

  144. Better CNN server? by PeterH-AU · · Score: 2, Informative

    For those having problems connecting to CNN.com, just a hint. asia.cnn.com. Its what us Australians are suppost to look at, even though it isn't hosted in Australia (its in the same place as www.cnn.com), except the only difference is it seems to be responding and able to handle traffic. And yes, that page lists all the world storys.

  145. You need some decent trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ask the french or japanese. Whatever you do don't ask the british. Railtrack can turn a 15 minute commuter journey into a two hour nightmare, just because someones jumped on the train line or a tree has blown over or it's rained within the past week... they even slow down eurostars. The only train that makes an effort to be on time is the gatwick express, and that doesn't stop anywhere :-(

    1. Re:You need some decent trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just because someones jumped on the train line or a tree has blown over

      JUST because someone's jumped on the train line? Hell, they should just leave them there, no? And yeah, trains can drive through trees, why the hell slow down, let alone stop for them ...

      I hear the point about the rain though ...

    2. Re:You need some decent trains by jonathan_ingram · · Score: 1

      Perhaps things will get better now we've closed Railtrack down...

    3. Re:You need some decent trains by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but Amtrak is broke. And neither the French nor Japanese have ever tried the equivalent of running high-speed trains from New York to L.A.

  146. Re:Nuke them now. by SecMan · · Score: 1

    Lets wait until we know the true cause before we start forming lynch-mobs, shall we?

  147. sounds like a real crash by Sentry23 · · Score: 1

    This crash reminds me a bit of a crash that happened years ago in Amsterdam, when an engine fell from a 747 cargo plane after take-off. The plane then tried to return to the field, but crashed in a flat because the broken off engine also caused major damage to the hydrolics system. There should be plenty voice comunication here between tower and plane for some information.
    The only thing odd, is that it was an Airbus A300, not a Boeing A300(as stated on the CNN website). Airbuses don't have a perfect track record, but as far as i know, nothing with engines falling off. (it seems the NTSB database is even slashdotted now). But an A300 isn't exactly state of the art anymore.

    Time wil tell.

  148. Doesn't look like a terror act by Antoshka · · Score: 0

    It doesn't look like a terror act. If it would they've could simply choose another place to maximize the damage.

    --
    Don't say No, say May be
  149. what is a level one emergency? by tester13 · · Score: 2

    what is a level one emergency? Is that a bigger or smaller emergency than level two? Anyone know about this sort of thing?

    1. Re:what is a level one emergency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are three levels of mobilization, Level 1 is the LOWEST. The media is all over it as level 1 being the worst possible condition. Also, level 1 mobilization is a police term, not a fire department term. FDNY operates in terms of "Alarm" levels, given the number of fire companies reported to be responding, it's at least a 5th alarm.

  150. At least consider the possibility by mosch · · Score: 2
    I know the officials want to convince everybody that it's not terrorism, but intelligent people should at least consider the possibility with an open mind.

    After all, if nobody thinks that this could be terrorism, why is every NYC area airport closed? JFK, LGA and EWR are all fully operational at the moment, but have been forced to close. That is not standard procedure. Or at least it wasn't before 11 Sep 2001.

    1. Re:At least consider the possibility by Sc00ter · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "Or at least it wasn't before 11 Sep 2001"


      I think you answered your own question.. It's different times now, they call for different procedures.

    2. Re:At least consider the possibility by Myko · · Score: 1

      "Or at least it wasn't before 11 Sep 2001"


      I think you answered your own question.. It's different times now, they call for different procedures.


      Additionally, the UN is in session in NY. Last thing that anybody wants is for Bin Laden to target dozens of VERY high ranking diplomats, especially since he just accused a lot of them of being traitors to Islam.

    3. Re:At least consider the possibility by mselmeci · · Score: 1

      Here's my ten cents: I don't think it's terrorism because (and forgive me for being insensitive) a plane is just not big enough a target to be worth smuggling a bomb onto. The terrorists may have a lot of money, but not infinite.

  151. Re:Strong Reason to be Late to Work in the Morning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better yet...

    http://www.silohome.com/index.htm

  152. Terrorism Ruled Out by mikeplokta · · Score: 1

    According to www.annanova.com, the FAA has ruled out terrorism as a cause of the crash.

    1. Re:Terrorism Ruled Out by humanasset · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How can terrorism be ruled out after less than an hour?

      It may well be an accident, but I would assume that the wreckage would need to be thoroughly examined to make any type of final determination.

    2. Re:Terrorism Ruled out by bigbird · · Score: 1

      It happened a few hours ago and they have already ruled out terrorism? I don't think so ... how can they possibly know at the moment?

    3. Re:Terrorism Ruled out by arminh1974 · · Score: 1

      Terrorism ruled out as cause of Queens crash

      Now that is indeed hard to believe! The US is currently engaged in a military confrontation with terrorists and one of their host-countries. Terrorists, who say they have chemical and nuclear weapons they will unleash if provoked. There just has been recent speculation about shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles and their possible threat they might pose to airliners. Guess what? That's probably exactly what happened and it won't be the last one. They're basically telling us "We know where and how to hurt you and the pain has only just begun!". Now all that shouldn't given reason to be afraid, but to be determined. We need to be very determined to follow through.

    4. Re:Terrorism Ruled out by necrognome · · Score: 1

      Don't think we can jump to that conclusion given eyewitness reports from cnn.com:

      NEW YORK (CNN) -- The crash of an American Airlines jet south of New York's John F. Kennedy airport started fires "all over the Rockaway peninsula," witnesses said.

      Smoke poured from the crash site, near the beaches of New York's borough of Queens. The crash site was about five miles from the airport, where the jet had just taken off for the Dominican Republic's capital Santo Domingo.

      The Airbus A300 carried 246 passengers and a crew of nine, federal authorities said. There was no immediate news of survivors.

      Witnesses said they saw an explosion on the right side of the plane before the crash. Phyllis Paul, who lives near the crash site, said a "big, silvery piece of metal" fell behind her house before the plane went down.

      "I was sitting having brekafast and I heard the engines very loud," she said. "They were loud and low, and because of what happened September 11, it gave me a chill ... I looked out o the window to see if I could see where it was, and then I saw a big silvery piece of metal falling from the sky behind my house."

      Paul, who was eating breakfast when she heard the plane, got her 10-year-old son and got out of the house.

      "I didn't hear an explosion at first when I saw the metal fall. I heard an explosion about a minute and a half later," she said.

      About 20 blocks away, David Saliro and his brother were in a car on a bridge on-ramp when the crash occurred. Saliro said the plane came down "at a flat trajectory, straight down flat."

      "We were both shaking and didn't know what to do," he said.

      Volunteer firefighters said a burning aircraft engine dropped into the back yard of a house, setting the house ablaze. No one was home at the time, one firefighter told CNN.

      Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, U.S. warplanes have patrolled the airspace around New York. Susan Locke, who lives about five blocks away, said she thought the noise at first was a fighter jet.

      "I looked out the window and saw a plane nosedive, straight down," she said.

      Another woman described the neighborhood around the crash site as a scene of "complete and utter terror. Everybody is so distraught and upset and in shock," she said.

      When the plane approached, "I thought it was like the Concorde and it was flying too low," she said. "Then it hit. It was like a bomb exploded."

      --


      Let's get drunk and delete production data!
  153. Thank You by B00mZilla · · Score: 0, Redundant

    didn't know about this.

  154. Eyewitnesses... by Richard5mith · · Score: 1

    Eyewitness reports on BBC Radio 5 report hearing an explosion before it went down and claim fighters alongside plane before crashing.

    1. Re:Eyewitnesses... by cyclist1200 · · Score: 0

      Well, maybe. But eyewitnesses have been known to say anything if it will get them on the radio/TV/newspaper.

      I'm going to wait and see if any other news outlets have any info on this.

  155. Newest from CNN by KingKire64 · · Score: 1

    NEW YORK (CNN) -- An American Airlines jet with 255 people on board crashed Monday on takeoff from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport. The plane went down at 9:17 a.m. EST in the Rockways section of the New York City borough of Queens, about five miles from Kennedy Airport. CNN confirmed the plane was American Airlines Flight 587 from New York to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. The plane was a Boeing Airbus A300. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said the plane was carrying 246 passengers and nine crew members. Asked if terrorism was suspected, Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Bill Schumann said, "All options are open at this time. We have very limited information." The Pentagon said surveillance fights were going on in the area and nothing unusual had been spotted. At least four houses were on fire, and a huge plume of smoke could be seen rising from the site. The New York Fire Department dispatched 44 firetrucks and 200 firefighters to the scene. All three New York City-area airports -- Kennedy, LaGuardia and Newark -- closed after the crash, along with all the city's bridges and tunnels. Mayor Rudy Giuliani declared a Level One emergency, mobilizing all available police, fire and emergency personnel.

    --
    "All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
  156. Re:Nuke them now. by smack_attack · · Score: 2, Funny

    He's talking about Canada, even if they aren't the cause of the crash, we still need to nuke them.

  157. europe.cnn.com by Kryptonomic · · Score: 2

    CNN's European site is working fine.

  158. Slightly more detail by Snackwell · · Score: 5, Informative

    From a local TV station's site -- often a good secondary source of info when the big boys get overwhelmed.

    http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/1069613/det ai l.html

    American Airlines Plane Crashes In New York
    Four Homes On Fire

    POSTED: 9:30 a.m. EST November 12, 2001
    UPDATED: 10:13 a.m. EST November 12, 2001

    NEW YORK -- An American Airlines Airbus A300 crashed Monday morning in the Queens section of New York, and four homes reportedly were on fire in the neighborhood in the Rockaway section of Queens.

    The plane crashed shortly after 9 a.m. ET, and thick, black smoke could be scene in televised reports. It was reportedly headed to JFK, but the origin of the flight was undetermined.

    Bill Schumann of the Federal Aviation Administration said there was no immediate indication of what caused the crash. He said the plane could hold up to 275 passengers, and crashed about five miles from Kennedy Airport. There were 246 passengers and 9 crewmembers aboard the flight, according to CNN.

    Asked if terrorism is suspected, Schumann said that all options are open at the time and they have very little information. Defense officials said that while combat jets were flying over the sky as is routine, there were not any reports of suspicious activity or distress calls.

    Television images show thick black smoke rising from the scene. The smoke was seen turning white, which could indicate that the flames were being put out.

    Fox News Channel reports it was an American Airlines flight 587. All three New York City airports were closed to air travel. They include LaGuardia, JFK and Newark airports.

    Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has canceled his morning events and is heading to the scene.

    FAA said American Airlines Flight 587, an Airbus A300, crashed. It was on its way to Santo Domingo Dominican Republic. CNN reported that the engine came down separate from the rest of the jetliner and that Giuliani confirmed that there are two separate crash sites. A witness said he saw an explosion on the side of the plane.

    It was a "level 1" emergency, which means all emergency personnel are advised to go to the crash scene. All the major tunnels heading into New York have been closed.

    Reports have varied throughout the morning. The FAA said there seems to be no indication of a terrorist attack.

    A witness said he saw debris falling from the sky, at the scene of today's plane crash.

    He told the Fox News Channel that four homes are on fire.

    Another man told CNN that he was 40 blocks away, and saw "tons and tons of smoke." He said, "Lots of people are standing in the streets.

    A woman who lives near the scene of the crash said she heard the engines of a plane -- "loud and low" -- before the crash.

    Phyllis Paul told CNN she looked out the window to see a "silvery piece of metal" falling from the sky, several blocks away.

    Then, she said, she heard an explosion.

    She said she and her son went outside and saw the black smoke rising from the Queens crash site. She said it was "horrifying."

    Paul said the sound of the plane gave her a "chill" -- because of what happened on Sept. 11.

    The flight was an American Airlines jet, which had taken off from Kennedy Airport -- several miles from the crash site. It was headed to the Dominican Republic.

    The crash came two months and a day after the attack on the World Trade Center.

    The American Airlines phone number relatives information line is (800) 245-0999.

    --
    Lurking peacefully since 1997
  159. And the internet is Fuxored again by robvasquez · · Score: 0

    You figure they'd have fixed this since the last time

  160. Rockaway Beach? by paranoid.android · · Score: 1

    Is this the same Rockaway Beach immortalized in the Ramones song of the same name?

    1. Re:Rockaway Beach? by jjjpinkojjj · · Score: 1

      Yup. The Ramones are from Queens, and there's only one Rockaway Beach that I'm aware of.

      --
      I'd like to dip my balls in that.
  161. Re:Sabotage by PeterMiller · · Score: 1

    Probably they sabotaged the plane... After all, you don't need to be in a plane to make it fall. But don't jump to conclusions...

    WHAT?!?!?!?!??!?!!?

  162. Re:PLEASE: Cut & Paste articles under this thr by gavlil · · Score: 1

    from sknews.co.uk

    Plane Crashes In New York A plane has crashed into a residential area of New York. It is understood the plane was an Airbus A300 and suffered engine failure shortly after taking off from JFK airport. Reports say the aircraft may have been carrying up to 246 passengers when it plunged into homes in Queens. The jet, thought to be flight 587, was heading to Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic. There are reports the plane hit a number of homes near Rockaway beach. One eyewitness said pieces of the plane were falling off mid-air. "I saw a large piece hit a hood of a car," one women told Fox News. "It seem to fold and fall onto a residential area," adding that she initially thought the plane was a Concorde. F16 fighter jets are now in the skies of New York - the incident comes two months after the US terrorist attacks on the US. Security chiefs said there was no evidence of terrorist activity but all airports in New York have now been closed as a precautionary measure. Bridges and tunnels have been closed The city has also been put on the highest state of alert. A huge plume of smoke is rising above the New York skyline as the wreckage burns. The Dow Jones dropped 200 points as news of the crash reached the markets. Early reports said the plane was a Boeing 767 - the same type which crashed into the World Trade Centre.
    --

    Do Unto Others As You Would Have Others Do Unto You - ONLY HARDER!
  163. Re:*Leap* by FatRatBastard · · Score: 2

    You're preaching to the choir. I've had huge reservations about Pakistan from day one.

    Having said that, I don't believe the "break the circle of violence" line either. That assumes that the other side is rational and wouldn't have done a damn thing had America not a) been in bed with Israel, b) been full of heathen Christians/Jews/Muslims who aren't *real* muslims, etc.

    Funny how people assume the worst of us and the best of them. Sorry if you don't like it, but for the most part I'm for extracting bin Laden, and unfortunatly that's going to have a price, in terms of world politics and civilian deaths. Not the greatest of choices, but the best that could be expected.

  164. Thanks /. by thetechweenie · · Score: 1

    I just got up, and saw this on the news. My parents flew out to Arizona this moring (from Logan), but it took 35 minutes for the freakin news station to say where the flight had originated. My parents flew American Airlines. Thanks to the slashdot team for posting the info. I feel horibly for any people who lost their lifes in this today. I pray that this was not yet another terrorist attack.

    --


    Um, this is my sig.
  165. airbus? hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Midwest radio, local to me, said it was a Boeing 767?

    guess someone is wrong.

  166. A300 by Porag_Spliffing · · Score: 1

    Info on the hardware involved at http://www1.airbus.com/products/A300.asp if you can get the site to respond. you can try www2 instead, is equaly bad for me, it will get worse with some /.ing

    --
    Maybe you live in interesting times
  167. Does the trade in fake spare parts not worry you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When US airlines get their fake engine parts from dodgy people who aren't qualified, disaster comes :-(

    If this is the case, it was predicted several years ago by a major magazine (I can't remember if it was businessweek or time or newsweek) that did an investigation.

  168. Well said! by vrt3 · · Score: 1

    That's exactly how I feel about the matter, only I've never been able to formulate it that well. Thanks!

    --
    This sig under construction. Please check back later.
  169. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Given that neither reaction nor inaction will prevent further attacks

    False assumption (typical relativism approach to framing an argument).

    Destroying thousands of future soldiers, exterminating another relativist culture, removing a government that provides support for terrorist camps, creating a government that feeds and cares for the Afghan people (rather than beating and killing them), telling Islam that it had better start its reformation, and sending a message to other states that sponsor terrorism that they're next does make a significant impact.

    Remember Libya? Backed off after we sent a message that was stronger than words.

    Read your American history. Barbary pirates. Nazis. Mexican raids. Etc. A lack of response guarantees failure. A response is not a guarantee of success, but is required to have a chance at it.

    Which course will polarise world opinion, leading previously moderate people to support radical organisations? (Clue: look at Pakistan.)

    Appeasement to make "other people like us" is guaranteed to fail, and furthermore, makes dirty bastards like you as guilty as the killers. Your type killed millions of Czechs by appeasing Hitler.

    Which course will kill innocent people abroad, in addition to those who have already died in the US?

    Discussing both options like you've proposed, how does not doing anything not kill more people abroad and in the US? Do you think OBL is done now? Clue: Look at a plane on the ground in the Bronx. Do you think more terrorists like him will follow along if we don't act? Clue: Look at the Carter presidency.

    Which course will perpetuate a cycle of violence and be used to justify further attacks?

    Doing nothing will. Clue: Look at your examples supplied and a culture of minimal response. Clue: Look at Syria. Have a city threatening with insurrection? Exterminate it and set an example.

    Is your desire to feel like you're doing something worth the consequences?

    Is your desire to be a fatalist seeing his own destruction worth the consequences to the rest of society?

    For our sake, I'd encourage you to seek the closest bridge, jump and get it over with. Quit bothering us with your fascination with suicide.

  170. ABC News, 10:19 Eastern Standard Time by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 2


    10:19 Eastern Standard Time, 11/12/01

    Jet Crash in NYC Borough of Queens

    ABC News

    Plane Down Near JFK Airport

    N E W Y O R K, Nov. 12 _ An American Airlines jet departing from John F. Kennedy International Airport crashed in a heavily populated section of the New York City borough of Queens at 9:17 a.m. ET, emergency officials said, and there was no report on the number of passengers and crew on board.

    The jet, an Airbus 300, departed JFK at 9:15 a.m., officials said, when it crashed into an area populated with many homes and businesses. The American Airlines web site said Flight 587 was headed for Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic. The plane crashed near Beach 129th Street and Newport Avenue, in the Rockaways section of Queens. There were no reports of injuries at the scene.

    Thick black smoke could be seen billowing above the crash site for miles and several buildings were said to be on fire. Emergency crews raced to the scene.

    Harriet Cohen, a Queens resident who lives near the airport and about 10 blocks from the crash site, said she was eating breakfast in her home when she thought she heard the Concorde leaving the airport. After hearing a terrible bang, she told her husband: "Oh my, I think it must have broken the sound barrier." But then the house shook, Cohen said. "I looked outside, and 10 blocks from us, there was black thick smoke rising up into the sky."

    Minutes after the crash, all three New York City-area airports _ Kennedy, LaGuardia and Newark _ were closed. Airports in Washington, D.C., remained open.

    The incident comes two months after two hijacked jets rammed into the World Trade Center in Manhattan killing about 4,500.


    An explanation of how the U.S. got involved in violence: What should be the Response to Violence?

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
  171. Here we go again by pcgamez · · Score: 1

    At least this time it is not as big of a site. On Sept 11, I could see tsmoke cloud from my back yard.

    FWIW, from the news here, it is NOT a terrorist action, but an accident. If it WAS a terrorist action, it would not be a direct hijacking but mechanical tampering.

    ~Steven
    outside NYC

    1. Re:Here we go again by nickyj · · Score: 0

      Question: Has anyone released video of the plane crashing? If yes, then there should be some thoughts that this was a terrorist action.

      How can this happen? Several possiblities:
      1) mechanical tampering before take off. Unlikely with the new heightened security.

      2) projectile shot at the plane. More likely, a large rifle might give enough accuracy, and can cause the engine to drop out. A bird would cause similar damage, but usually those types of incidents are recoverable.

      Just my 2 cents and only my opinion. Shaken at work in NYC, God bless USA.

      --
      Causing Chaos Everywhere,
      Nik J.
      The strange world of a loner, in a populous city, drowning in society
    2. Re:Here we go again by pcgamez · · Score: 1

      >2) projectile shot at the plane. More likely, a large rifle might give enough accuracy, and can cause the engine to drop out. A bird would cause similar damage, but usually those types of incidents are recoverable.

      What are the ods of a rifle hitting the engine? The plane is flying at a few hundred miles per hour, and has at least some altitude (5 miles distance from the airport).

      hmm

  172. Re:*Leap* by debrain · · Score: 2

    * which course will lead to huge American public backlash (clue: look at polls for desire to bomb)
    * which course will produce huge economic turnaround by producing a post-war upturning
    * which course will produce even more arms exports that can be used against the US. (The Afghans are using American weapons, after all.)

    Just pointing those out. I agree with your points more than anyone, I'd say. I'm quite openly hostile towards people ignorant enough to believe that bombing a nation prone to generating suicidal bombers will make them less of a threat (short of a genocidal solution). But the people making the decisions are not the ones looking at the big picture; they're fighting their own bubble-world discourse.

  173. Skynews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    skynews

    Plane Crashes In New York



    A plane has crashed into a residentialarea ofNew York.


    It is understood the plane was an Airbus A300 and suffered engine failure shortly after taking off from JFK airport.


    Reports say the aircraft may have been carrying up to 246 passengers when it plunged into homes in Queens.


    The jet, thought to be flight 587,was heading to Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic.
    One eyewitness said pieces of the plane were falling off mid-air and flames were seen on the right hand side of plane.


    "I saw a large piece hit a hood of a car," one women told Fox News.
    "It seem to fold and fall onto a residential area," adding that she initially thought the plane was a Concorde.


    F15 fighter jets are now in the skies of New York - the incident comes two months after the US terrorist attacks on the US. They were believed to be in the sky when the plane crashed.


    Security chiefs said there was no evidence of terrorist activity but all airports in New York have now been closed as a precautionary measure. Bridges and tunnels have been closed The city has also been put on the highest state of alert.


    A huge plume of smoke is rising above the New York skyline as the wreckage burns.


    The Dow Jones dropped 200 points as news of the crash reached the markets.


    Early reports said the plane was a Boeing 767 - the same type which crashed into the World Trade Centre.

  174. CBS' news report... by Cloudkicker · · Score: 1

    http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,317684-412 ,00.shtml

    A few more details. Little bit better than Yahoo's blurb.

    bluB

    --
    Cloudkicker
  175. Live Video by macjerry · · Score: 1

    Click10.com has live video, mirrored by akami.

  176. Re:Bombs We need lots of bombs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where have you been living recently, under a rock? Lots of bombs are being used. If this is terrorism it shows that a new approach is needed

  177. 300k Broadband (M$ Link) by siriusnova · · Score: 1

    Here is a 300K Broadband Live News link to BBC

    http://bbcx001.ontarget.media.ibeam.com/netshow/ bb c1099/ads/default/bbc_default.asx?cmd=engage&asxty pe=adonly&site=bbcx001&area=ent&rate=350

    got it from windowsmedia.com =]]

    1. Re:300k Broadband (M$ Link) by siriusnova · · Score: 1

      http://windowsmedia.com/preview/asx/BBCworld350k.a sx

      Try this

  178. Re:*Leap* by Paulo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sure. OTOH, the terrorists destroy the WTC and kill the father and mother of an american child, who grows up listening to people like you saying that he shouldn't do anything about it and that he should protest any attempts to destroy the terrorists because "violence creates violence". 25 years later, that kid grows up turned into another peaceful, civilized citizen who opposes any U.S. intervention against Afghanistan or other countries... and is killed by another attack perpetrated by the terrorists that we failed to capture after the WTC.

    Don't get me wrong, I do believe that the U.S. should do anything in its hands to solve the Israeli-Palestinan problem (if only to leave Bin Laden without arguments). But that doesn't exclude using the force to capture or destroy the criminals. And if you think otherwise, I invite you to step up the next time the police in your zone has a serial killer surrounded and try to talk him into giving up his evil ways, instead of letting the cops using (horror!!) physical force to arrest him.

  179. Cnn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    American Airlines jet crashes in New York
    November 12, 2001 Posted: 10:06 AM EST (1506 GMT)

    Smoke rises Monday morning from the crash site in Queens, New York.

    NEW YORK (CNN) -- An American Airlines jet with 255 people on board crashed Monday on takeoff from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport.
    The plane went down at 9:17 a.m. EST in the Rockways section of the New York City borough of Queens, about five miles from Kennedy Airport.
    CNN confirmed the plane was American Airlines Flight 587 from New York to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. The plane was a Boeing Airbus A300. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said the plane was carrying 246 passengers and nine crew members.
    Asked if terrorism was suspected, Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Bill Schumann said, "All options are open at this time. We have very limited information."
    The Pentagon said surveillance fights were going on in the area and nothing unusual had been spotted.
    At least four houses were on fire, and a huge plume of smoke could be seen rising from the site. The New York Fire Department dispatched 44 firetrucks and 200 firefighters to the scene.
    All three New York City-area airports -- Kennedy, LaGuardia and Newark -- closed after the crash, along with all the city's bridges and tunnels. Mayor Rudy Giuliani declared a Level One emergency, mobilizing all available police, fire and emergency personnel.

  180. Here's the flight tracking info... by cjsnell · · Score: 2


    Here's the flight tracking info from Flytecomm. Please don't kill my server. Thanks.

    1. Re:Here's the flight tracking info... by DjReagan · · Score: 1

      Airline American Flight Number 587
      Departure City (Airport) New York, NY (JFK)
      Departure Time 11/12/2001 09:15 AM
      Arrival City (Airport) Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic (MDSD)
      Arrival Time 11/12/2001 05:31 PM
      Remaining Flight Time 05:01
      Aircraft Type Airbus A300B4-600
      Current Altitude 29,000 feet
      Current Groundspeed 250 mph
      Flight Status In Flight

      I think the Current Altitude, Groundspeed and Status are a bit out of date.

      --
      "When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
    2. Re:Here's the flight tracking info... by cjsnell · · Score: 2

      Well, they only update the information every minute or so. I would imagine that the plane went off radar pretty quickly.

  181. FAA Rule out terrorism. by Lozzer · · Score: 2

    Thats what Ananova are saying here anyway.

    --
    Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
  182. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    try vietnam.

  183. Nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it indeed turns out that the plane crashed from a bird flying into the engine, we must react with swift and deadly force. No longer can birds, or the countries that tolerate their presence, hide from the justice they deserve.

    Thank you, and God bless America.

    Nice to know that it takes approximately 2 months for tasteless jokes about the greatest tragedy on American soil to get modded up...

    Whatever caused the incident, there are many dead and injured, but glad you have managed to keep perspective on this.

  184. Re:PLEASE: Cut & Paste articles under this thr by gavlil · · Score: 1
    from dailynews.yahoo.com
    Passenger Jet Crashes in Queens, NY

    NEW YORK (AP) - An American Airlines flight that had just taken off for the Dominican Republic crashed Monday, and buildings reportedly were on fire in the Queens section of New York City.

    Flight 587, an Airbus A300 that can hold 275 passengers, crashed shortly after 9 a.m. and thick, black smoke could be seen miles away. There was no report of the number of casualties, either on the plane or on the ground.

    Thick, black smoke could be seen miles away from the crash in the Rockaways section of Queens.

    The crash came two months after the attack on the World Trade Center, which was destroyed by two Boeing 767s hijacked out of Boston's Logan Airport. One of the planes was operated by American, the other by United.

    Bill Schumann of the Federal Aviation Administration (news - web sites) said there was no immediate indication of what caused the crash. He said the plane crashed about five miles from Kennedy Airport.

    All metro area airports - Kennedy, LaGuardia and Newark - were closed following the crash, in Rockaway, Queens. The Office of Emergency Management said all bridges and tunnels in the city were closed except to emergency vehicles.

    Planes were being diverted, and Delta Air Lines spokeswoman Peggy Estes said the airline was working to account for all its planes.

    The mayor canceled his morning events and headed to the scene.

    One eyewitness reported debris falling from sky, and told the Fox News Channel four homes were on fire.

    Another told CNN he was 40 blocks away and saw ``just a lot of smoke. Tons and tons of smoke. You can see emergency vehicles heading to the area. Lots of people are standing in the streets. It's very tense.''

    --

    Do Unto Others As You Would Have Others Do Unto You - ONLY HARDER!
  185. Hijacking by jonnyfish · · Score: 1

    I've read several comments here regarding hijacking. Supposing this is a terrorist attack, it is very unlikely that they would even consider hijacking. With all of the new security measures in place, such a hijacking would be nearly impossible.

    I've read reports that an engine fell out. If this is true, sabotage is what we should worry about. If these terrorists were smart enough to plan the September 11 attacks years in advance, then we should assume they are smart enough to have people working at airports all over the US.

    At this point we can only hope that this is not a terrorist attack. If terrorism is the cause (for example, by means of sabotage, as I've suggested), then this may raise even more security issues than the WTC attacks.

    :(

  186. Latest - Reuters report a JFK machanic arrested by sales_worldwide · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Reuters have just reported that the FBI have arressted a mechanic who worked on the Airbus before takeoff.

    --
    "Making linux GPL was the best thing I ever did" - Torvalds. I'd hate to see the worst thing...
  187. Some video reports from the BBC by Andy.T.BOFH · · Score: 1

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/
    has a link to a realmedia stream.
    Dosnt show the event itself, but shows the smoke coming up, and has a 15 minute report

    --
    01011001011011110111010101101101011101010111001101 1101000110001001100101011000100110111101110010011
    1. Re:Some video reports from the BBC by rednuhter · · Score: 1

      Damm, I was hoping some one was sitting there filming all the planes that went by, waiting 4 them to crash.

      --
      ERR 411[Max number of witty sigs reached]
  188. Perfect example of media knee-jerk by Ratteau · · Score: 1


    Not to harp, but the article said the plane was a Boeing Airbus A300. As other posters have said, we need to wait and sort this stuff how. Bad as it may sound, lets hope this was an accident... The media have a REALLY bad habit of reporting without checking the facts. Boeing (US company) is a competetor of Airbus (multinational european company). If they cant even get the most basic facts straight, why would anyone believe their posturing and theorizing.

  189. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  190. Slashdot Comes Through by austinij · · Score: 1
    I just wanted to comment and thank slashdot for carrying this information. Just like on 9/11, once again Slashdot seems to be the only news site I can get to for information. CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX, everything else is difficult, if not impossible, to get to.

    Thanks slashdot, your coverage is crucial!

  191. Uh-oh.. by Proteus+Child · · Score: 1

    I hope I'm overreacting a bit here.. there's something about this that's giving me the chills. I really hope this is 'simply' a case of pilot error, or a simple electromechanical failure.

    --

    Proteus' Child

    Doko ni datte; hito wa, tsunagette iru.

  192. Re:Nuke them now. by k2r · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but the main cause for terrorism aren't the religious fundamentalists.
    They are just a symptom for some major thing going wrong on this planet. Remember that there are even Terrorists who are Americans and place bombs (maybe even Antrax) in the US.

    So It would be neccesary not only getting rid of the "Bin Laden"s but to change politics in general to have a real impact on the level of hate in this world.

    And seriuosly, I doubt that Mr. "America first" Bush is capable of doing so.

    k2r

    (Neither I believe that out European politicians will get a clue, it's not only Mr. Bush)

  193. Re:*Leap* by nr1 · · Score: 1

    not only that...
    the family situation would be more realistic like that:
    Father killed during the civil war or by the taliban, mother raped and needing to beg since she is not allowed to work. 2 of the childred killed or maimed by landmines (have you ever seen a picture of a leg that was torn apart by a mine or a cluster bomblet?). One more close to dying of hunger....
    Well, and now you are sitting with the remaining family in a refugee camp somewhere at the border, because yet another super power thinks it has to control your countries affairs. Maybe you even have a little tent...but forget about food or blankets...oh, did i mention that winter is approaching?
    Now imagine that this were your family...who would you want to kill afterwards?

  194. CNN on IRC by incompetent_bitch · · Score: 1

    For those of us at work who don't have a TV in front of us, you can join CNN net and join the #newsfeed channel for the latest news. Misspellings aside, it's up to date info.

    1. Re:CNN on IRC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the exact address for CNN's irc server? irc.cnn.net? irc.cnn.com?

  195. An engine -fell off- the plane??? by jd · · Score: 2, Insightful
    For the last time, you can't simply use duct tape, and hope the engine stays in place.


    Seriously, this reinforces my conviction that aircraft safety & security is going in completely the wrong direction. Why focus so heavily on trying to prevent very specific types of incident? Why not simply design aircraft on the assumption that they're going to crash (by accident or design), and build them to keep as many people alive as possible?


    For example - there are parachutes, built for jet airliners, capable of safely bringing even a 747 or 757 to a safe(ish) landing, assuming enough altitude to slow the monster down.


    Another example - if a package holding eggs can be dropped from the top of the Empire State Building, and have the eggs intact at the bottom, you can figure that we know a lot about air resistance with various topologies, and that we know how to make a decent bubble-wrap. It should be possible to design an aircraft skin capable of absorbing significant amounts of energy, in the event of an impact.


    Lastly, aircraft are not built out of the safest of materials. Aluminium (aluminum for USians) burns with an intense ferocity. Those who remember the Falkland's War (damn it, it was a WAR, not a "Conflict") will remember the HMS Sheffield, which was built out of aluminium. One direct hit turned it into a giant, inescapable fireball. Many fireworks, and even some modern munitions, use aluminium as a component. Sure, it's light, but so are many other materials. Maybe it's time to change.


    We've entered the 21st century, with aircraft that are practically designed to explode on someone sneezing the wrong way, with no possibility of survival. As ideas go, this does not sound like the brightest there has ever been.


    Of course, maybe I could be wrong. Maybe people enjoy riding oversized firecrackers, with a bazillion mad-men around the world desperately wanting to light the fuse.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by rednuhter · · Score: 1
      y do'nt they?

      bold, plain and simple, its cheaper not 2

      --
      ERR 411[Max number of witty sigs reached]
    2. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A package containing an egg was dropped from the empire state building and the egg survived?

      Now I know this is a very common experiment to do in colleges, but they also only drop from a 4 story building.

      If I were allowed to use a parachute, I'm sure I could have the egg survive the 40 story drop. But I doubt bubble wrap alone would suffice.

    3. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by costas · · Score: 5, Informative

      I am an aerospace engineer, and I fly on A300s once a week. I also used to be involved in air safety and preventive maintainance for a military aviation.

      Notes:
      1. Single engine failure during take-off is the single worst design condition for a twin-jet like an A-300.
      2. Single engine failures during take-off are always taken into account for any passenger aircraft. A simple engine
      failure cannot bring down a jetliner.
      3. What can bring down a jetliner is the consequences of an engine failure: fire in the wing, explosion of the wing fuel tanks, compound failure of all redundant hydraulic systems, pylon failure (which would expose fuel lines), etc.

      However, most of the above reasons are well-known. Take-off is the hardest flight region, and most eventualities are taken into account into designing these birds.

      Further, a quick search of NTSB's online air crash info database, reveals no incident involving an A-300 and engine failure in the last 5 yrs. This is not typical if a design error is to be blamed.

      Thus, it can be two things: either a failure of preventive maintainance or sabotage. The former is possible, due to the recent massive layoffs in the airline business, but unlikely: airlines usually don't fire skilled personnel, and when/if they do, maintainance personnel tend to over-perform during times of crises.

      Please stop assuming that somehow corners are cut when designing airliners or that aero engineers sit around saying "lets use combustive materials for this one, shall we"? We know that we only get one chance to avoid fatalities. Airliners are routinely designed with huge safety margins, usually on top of the worst-ever-recorded conditions.

    4. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by wiredog · · Score: 5, Informative

      Jet engines fall off by design. If a bird goes into the engine, the engine starts to come apart. There's lots of rotational energy there, and you want the engine to come off, rather than apply torque to the wing. The other case where you want the engine to come off is in a wheels up landing, because the engines hang below the body of the aircraft and, again, you want the engine to come off rather than the wing. Look at google for "engine fuse pin".

    5. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by ke6 · · Score: 1

      I've worked for componet's companies, and fire is a big concern. The biggest work over the past decades in airtravel has been in the adhesives(glues, epoxys, etc). It is considered a BIG thing if you can create a new epoxy that will give people 5 more seconds to get off a plane.

      When dealing with the adhesives, it's generally not the fire that gets you. It's the fumes. Not just smoke, some composite materials burn clear, but the invisible fumes will still kill you.

      For the record, nothing we made was structural, as in if it failed, the plane would come down. We made floor panels(if that fails, you may put your foot thru it, but it's not going to kill you)

      The best description I ever heard was: "The plane's going to burn. If we can keep people alive for 5 more seconds, that's better odds for everyone"

    6. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by Skyfire · · Score: 1
      • For example - there are parachutes, built for jet airliners, capable of safely bringing even a 747 or 757 to a safe(ish) landing, assuming enough altitude to slow the monster down.
      First of all, this might work on planes that manage to have something like an engine fall off at high altitude, however this accident happened at low altitude. Second, you would need a hell of a lot of fabric (of some sort, probably some sort of high strength polyester) and "string" (kevlar most likely) to bring that large an airplane down safely, and it would have to be able to absorb the shock. That is very heavy and very bulky.

      • Another example - if a package holding eggs can be dropped from the top of the Empire State Building, and have the eggs intact at the bottom, you can figure that we know a lot about air resistance with various topologies, and that we know how to make a decent bubble-wrap. It should be possible to design an aircraft skin capable of absorbing significant amounts of energy, in the event of an impact.
      Looks good on paper mainly, but is too heavy, and too expensive. If something blows off an airplane, air resistance predictability is screwed to hell and all aerodynamic calculations pretty much go out the window.
      • Lastly, aircraft are not built out of the safest of materials. Aluminium (aluminum for USians) burns with an intense ferocity. Those who remember the Falkland's War (damn it, it was a WAR, not a "Conflict") will remember the HMS Sheffield, which was built out of aluminium. One direct hit turned it into a giant, inescapable fireball. Many fireworks, and even some modern munitions, use aluminium as a component. Sure, it's light, but so are many other materials. Maybe it's time to change.
      Aluminum is good for several reasons:
      light
      predictable
      cheap
      the problem with most alternatives is that their cons outweigh their pros when compared to aluminum
      for example, magnesium, a metal that is even lighter than aluminum is more expensive, and burns even worse. However, aluminum and magnesium are both very hard (almost impossible) to ignite when in solid form. Fireworks have aluminum in powder form.
      Composites, while with mass production probably able to become cheaper, lacks predictability. The strength of a composite is very hard to predict because it is highly dependent on quality of manufacturing. That, and maintence is very hard to do because a perfect looking part can be almost completely useless.
      --
      Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
    7. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by loopkin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      actually, planes are designed to crash....

      this is the main difference between Boeing and Airbus as for the conception:
      On Boeing planes, the engine is kept very hard tightened to the wing, and is expected to behave as a "cushion" when the plane crashes
      On Airbus planes, the engine is expected to detach from the wing when the plane crashes, to avoid that the wing breaks and goes into fire.
      That said, you can guess that the link between wing and engine is checked very often and very carefully on every plane...

      Now we should wait for the explanation of what really happened, because for now, there is no satisfactory plain and certain explanation.
      Everything is possible, but we have to be sure (as for birds, engines are designed as well not to go into fire when a bird goes thru it.. now, for 3 or 4 birds at the same time, or a big bird, it's another story)

    8. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by Sloppy · · Score: 2

      Why not simply design aircraft on the assumption that they're going to crash (by accident or design), and build them to keep as many people alive as possible?

      Because then aircraft wouldn't be affordable. Do you want to pay $2000 for a ticket to fly 600 miles?

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    9. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by k4m3 · · Score: 1

      Please use the same argues with the car industry. Ask them why cars are so fragile, why so much people are killed everyday in car crashes ? Those situations are well knowns, but despite this you're still not driving a tank ?

    10. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by Bobzibub · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'd like better seat belts. The steward[esses] get two shoulder straps + belt, where regular unwashed people get only belts. When pulling lots of Gs like in a crash, I'd prefer to be better strapped in, instead of my head smacking that credit card phone.

    11. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by goethean · · Score: 2, Funny

      now, for 3 or 4 birds at the same time, or a big bird, it's another story)

      ...or Big Bird! We already know Bert's involved...

      --

      _____
      God is only experiencing itself -- Nisargadatta Maharaj
    12. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "remember the HMS Sheffield, which was built out of aluminium. One direct hit turned it into a giant, inescapable fireball."

      Something similar happened to the USS Long Beach, IIRC. It's superstructure was aluminum and a particularly intense fire melted part it.

      I knew that Cirrus Aircraft was using parachutes in their small aircraft, hadn't heard of one big enough for an airliner.

    13. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by nemesisj · · Score: 1

      Commercial aircraft are designed with some of the highest safety margins of any product ever. You're more likely to choke to death than die in an airplane, so stop being ridiculous. Your comparison of a fully loaded jet (both with passengers and jet fuel) crashing to an egg drop contest is probably the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard of.

    14. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by blair1q · · Score: 2

      Design the egg protection system to work at terminal velocity, and you can drop it from 40,000 feet.

      Airliners won't ever work that way. They only exist because the cost/benefit ratio leaves room for profit. Without that serendipity, the business wouldn't be feasible, and we'd be riding everywhere in trains and boats--and crashing and sinking in even greater numbers.

      The qualification of airplane and airplane component designs is tortuous, rendering an airframe that is innately and verifiably safer than any other human product.

      What Boeing and Airbus really need to do is find a way to make the press safer. Then airplanes could crash with their usual statistical regularity, and the point-failure tragedy would not appear as though it is more significant than the day's dose of 1200 smoking deaths or the month's dose of 3200 automobile deaths.

      --Blair

    15. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by andymac · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not true in this case (possibly others). The Airbus A300 has all of its hydraulics centered in the wing-engine region. An engine falls off and there's a better than 90% chance that you've lost all your hydraulics. Even with double redundancy for the hydraulics there's almost no way that you will NOT lose the hydraulic system, and thus any ability to control the plane. In the event of a general hydraulic system failure, you *could* control the plane via differential power (applying different amounts of power to each engine to perform basic navigation) - however with one engine dropped several kms behind you, you've got no hope in hell for controlling that plane.

      --
      "Content's a bitch."
    16. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There has been a problem in the past with the engine mount of an A310

      A300-600 Aft Engine Mount Failure

      A300/A310 Aft mount structures are certified 'safe life'

      Other AIB aircraft are certified 'fail safe'.

      In summer 1997, a separation of an Aft Mount Left Hand Side link was discovered during aircraft overhaul on an early A310-200 (MSN370) operated by THY airlines.

    17. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Lastly, aircraft are not built out of the safest of materials. Aluminium (aluminum for USians) burns with an intense ferocity.

      There was an experiement conducted in about 1994, where a guy bought a ton of surplus magnesium NeXT cube cases, and tried to ignite them in a 1700 degree Celsius kiln. He ruined the kiln when the magnesium melted all over. The only way he managed to light the stuff was by scraping filings off of it and lighting the little pile. Aluminum is similar. It only oxidizes when in powder form.

    18. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm driving a tank. It's called a Volvo 240 turbo wagon.

    19. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by BurntSand · · Score: 1
      HMS Sheffield's aluminum superstructure is a myth. To quote the sci.military naval FAQ, found at www.hazegray.org/faq/smn6.htm#F7:

      "One common story is that HMS Sheffield, a destroyer sunk during the 1982 Falkland War, was lost because her alleged aluminum superstructure made her more vulnerable to damage. This story is completely untrue, because Sheffield's superstructure was not aluminum. Like all ships of her class, her hull and superstructure were entirely steel. Aluminum played no role in her loss."
    20. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by zulux · · Score: 2

      There's one easy thing that Boeing pushed for, but passangers diden't like: rear facing seats. Rear facing seats would spread the force of an impact though you body, rather that snap you in half with a seat belt. Passengers diden't like it though - it was just too strange.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    21. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by reuel · · Score: 1

      During a news conference from Dallas this morning, the AA spokesman said that the most recent "A" maintainance of this plane was 11/11/01, yesterday . This seems to support the "failure of preventive maintainance" possibility.

      --
      [place clever signature here]
    22. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think that flying should be affordable to anyone? Airplane traffic is already are major factor in environmental pollution. I hope this crash will cause another MASSIVE decline in passanger numbers.

      Every airline that goes bankrupt is a reason for me to celebrate.

    23. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      ---Those who remember the Falkland's War (damn it, it was a WAR, not a "Conflict") will remember the HMS Sheffield, which was built out of aluminium. One direct hit turned it into a giant, inescapable fireball.---

      I heard about this in science class, only the way they told it, it was WAY worse than alluminum. They said that it was made of MAGNESIUM. Which, when the ship was hit, ignited. Of course, your story sounds more reasonable. If it was magnesium, probably no one could have even LOOKED at the ship without being blinded, much less survived it igniting. However, magnesium would be a great metal to use if it didn't ignite at such a low temperature (well, a pretty damn high temperature actually, but much less safe than steel, thoug way lighter).

    24. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      ----Airliners won't ever work that way. They only exist because the cost/benefit ratio leaves room for profit. ---

      Why does nearly everyone get this wrong? This is exactly the same kind of arguement that was put forth to claim that air travel would never ever be commercially affordable in the first place ("and only the five richest kings in Europe will be able to afford them!").
      Safety design features and flight insurance ALREADY make up a huge portion of the cost of planes: how did that ever happen if the story you're telling is true?

      And greater safety mostly means greater FIXED costs, not variable costs. As we all know, variable costs are the real measure of import when it comes to profitabilty over quantity, and figuring out whether a huge safety increase would or would no be profitable is not something one can simply know by making grand statements. It very well could make flying MORE profitable, depending on how risk averse people become after these highly publicized tragedies. It could be less profitable. I dunno, neither you or I have done the math, and the industries certainly haven't had a chance to re-examine the market.

      But you're right: it's ALSO not clear that less flying would mean more overall safety: it might well mean far more auto deaths, because more people would be on the roads.

    25. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by mauri · · Score: 1

      When I was young I always eondered why there are no parachutes on airliners. Of course it makes airvraft a bit mote expensive and bit more complicated, etc. But other than that ?
      Well, now I think it has something to do with liability. If 250 people jump and are subjected to harrassing atmosphere, break some feet and nose, suffer horror, lose their mobile phones, etc. then airline companies would face massive and costly lawsuits all the time. So maybe its cheaper to fly without parachutes...

      --
      __
      L.
    26. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by lgraba · · Score: 1
      Hmm, you seem to assume that we've gone through nearly 100 years of aviation while only exploring a single path of technology; this is not true, and most of the suggestions you give are seriously flawed:

      For example - there are parachutes, built for jet airliners, capable of safely bringing even a 747 or 757 to a safe(ish) landing, assuming enough altitude to slow the monster down.


      If you could build a parachute to safely lower an A300, it would likely need lots of altitude to unfurl and work, especially if you had to design it for high-speed deployment. In this case, you would need a drogue chute that could withstand high-speed, that would slow the vehicle before deploying either a larger drogue or the main chute. Also, as is stated elsewhere in the talkbacks, you would need either one extremely large chute, and a number of smaller ones.


      Another example - if a package holding eggs can be dropped from the top of the Empire State Building, and have the eggs intact at the bottom, you can figure that we know a lot about air resistance with various topologies, and that we know how to make a decent bubble-wrap. It should be possible to design an aircraft skin capable of absorbing significant amounts of energy, in the event of an impact.


      If its not the crushing of the airplane fuselage that kills passengers, it is the sudden deceleration. An egg can be dropped from a great height if you put large amounts of deformable material around it. This material deforms on impact so that the egg sees less deceleration. However, the higher the speed, the more deformable material you need to control the amount of deceleration. At a speed of 300-500 mph for an airplane, you would need a LOT of deformable material. This is VERY impractical.

      Let's try some calculations. Say the aircraft is travelling at 300 mph, which is 440 feet/sec. Let's assume that the maximum survivable deceleration (by 99% of the population) is 20 g's, or 644 feet/sec/sec, and that the aircraft will delerate at a constant rate. At this deceleration, it would take the aircraft 0.68 seconds to slow from 300 mph to 0. In this time, the aircraft will have travelled 150 feet. In other words, you would 150 feet of material that could provide constant deceleration (which is itself is difficult to provide). If you wrapped the entire aircraft in this material, the fuselage would be 300 feet in diameter, and you would add 300 feet to its length! Let's not even get into what this would do to the aerodynamics of the craft, both in terms of new lift requirements and the substantial added drag.

    27. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by blair1q · · Score: 2

      The reason all those "mass air travel will never be feasible" arguments got traction is that they were very nearly right. It didn't really go anywhere until technology improvements and prosperity and governmental investment made the economics work.

      Yes, you can make airlining much more expensive without killing it entirely. The Concorde is proof that anyone wishing the service will pay for it, exhorbitantly, even if it's just an increment better in time savings and no more safe.

      But you wouldn't have the A300 or the 767. You'd have the same size fuselage, but with a small cabin (just big enough for current first-class traffic, I'd say) and the rest of the space would be packed with crumple zones, armor, fire retardant, impact inflating flotation devices, parachute, ejection gear, and self-deploying medical supplies. And still they would crash and still people would die.

      It might be cheaper to make flying cars and call the death toll "traffic fatalities."

      --Blair

    28. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      ---The reason all those "mass air travel will never be feasible" arguments got traction is that they were very nearly right. It didn't really go anywhere until technology improvements and prosperity and governmental investment made the economics work.---

      No, the economics worked because flying routes was profitable, plain and simple. As time went on, both air travel AND safety features increased. So I don't see any rationale for claiming that more safety is necessarily going to have major costs (most of them fixed, however) not at least partially outweighed by benefits (most of them variable).

      ---Yes, you can make airlining much more expensive without killing it entirely. The Concorde is proof that anyone wishing the service will pay for it, exhorbitantly, even if it's just an increment better in time savings and no more safe. ---

      Right. Not every plane would necessarily have to be safer either, just like not every plane has to be the Concorde.

      ----But you wouldn't have the A300 or the 767. You'd have the same size fuselage, but with a small cabin (just big enough for current first-class traffic, I'd say) and the rest of the space would be packed with crumple zones, armor, fire retardant, impact inflating flotation devices, parachute, ejection gear, and self-deploying medical supplies. And still they would crash and still people would die. ----

      When you can only win an arguement by exaggerating the opposing case to absurdity... go for it!

    29. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by blair1q · · Score: 2

      Look, sunshine, the case is already absurd. Costs for airplane development are 10x-100x what the costs for similar automotive development would be. I'm pointing out that it's safe enough. You seem to want someone to argue against you, and you're not finding one. Troubling, isn't it?

      --Blair

    30. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      ---Look, sunshine, the case is already absurd---

      Why, because you, after providing NO data on the industry, say it is?

      ---Costs for airplane development are 10x-100x what the costs for similar automotive development would be.----

      And this proves... what exactly? Costs for auto development are 10x-100x more than development of little red wagons. Yet people still buy cars. Strange, isn't it?

      ---I'm pointing out that it's safe enough.---

      According to what? It could be. OR it could be far from safe enough. How did you figure out what the optimal level of airline safety was? I'm assuming you didn't do all the math in your head.

    31. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by jd · · Score: 2
      Tell that to any F1 driver. The metallic components of their cars are made of the stuff. It's always possible to ignite solid aluminium or magnesium, provided you have sufficient oxygen and temperature.


      In the case you outlined, a kiln generates very high temperatures, but the oxygen flow is extremely poor.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    32. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

      riiiight... maybe the airline industry should follow the auto industry and start building planes with reinforced frames, crumple zones, and of course... air bags!

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    33. Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? by jd · · Score: 2
      Airbags would be an interesting way to prevent the aircraft crashing. (Put them on the outside, use remaining engines to flood-fill)


      Putting them on the inside would be good, too. Most deaths in a catastrophic structural failure (ie: the aircraft blows up) are due to striking debris, not from the explosion itself. So, anything that reduces such injuries would certainly help.


      (You'd still need some way to get the people from 30,000 ft to the ground, intact, but that's comparitively simple, once you have someone left to -get- to the ground.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  196. Re:*Leap* by goodviking · · Score: 3, Insightful
    According to your reasoning, if someone comes into your house, kills your family, and eats your pizza, you should just sit there and hand them a beer lest you run the risk of pissing them off.


    If you really feel this way, let me ask you:

    • Should we have listened to the protectionists during WWII and not gotten involved?
    • Should we have not fought the Civil War?
    • What about the Revolutionary War, would it have been better to sit on our hands lest we run the risk of angering good King George?


    In short, if we are a nation that claims to believe in a set of principles above all else, but we are unwilling to fight for these principles, then we are a nation of hypocrites.

  197. another story.. by Stonehead · · Score: 2

    This is the ananova writeup..
    President Bush will surely wish you a good night and tell you that he was right after all. None less than that. Of course stay alert, but also keep an eye on your beloved president :P
    I feel sorry for all victims and all security people. Lots of internet news sites (at least here in The Netherlands) are DDoSed *again*. Has anything changed since two months ago?

  198. Terrorism Ruled out by ShdwStkr · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    From Ananova

    Ananova :

    Terrorism ruled out as cause of Queens crash

    Terrorism has been ruled out as a cause of the Queens air crash.

    Up to 246 passengers are thought to have been aboard the American Airlines Airbus A300.

    All New York area airports have been closed following the crash, in the Rockaways area of Queens, a residential neighbourhood under the JFK airport flight path.

    Bridges and tunnels into New York have also been closed but the Federal Aviation Authority has ruled out terrorism as a cause.

    The organisation earlier stated that the cause of the crash is not known, although there are reports the jet suffered engine failure.

    Washington says US Air Force patrols over New York received no calls before the crash.

    Fighters have been flying over the city's skies 24 hours a day since September 11. Crews have been told they must be prepared to shoot down any hijacked civilian aircraft if ordered to do so.

    The passenger jet had taken off from John F Kennedy Airport - five to 10 miles away, when it crashed into buildings and burst into flames.

    Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has joined rescue services at the scene. At least four buildings are said to be on a fire. One witness reported debris falling from sky and told the Fox News Channel that four homes were on fire.

    Another told CNN he was 40 blocks away and saw: "Just a lot of smoke. Tons and tons of smoke. You can see emergency vehicles heading to area. Lots of people are standing in the streets. It's very tense."

  199. So here's my theory by smack_attack · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    An insider, possibly a mechanic, rigged the engine with a bomb. Now I'm going to stretch this a bit and say that there might have been actual hijackers on the plane, and that they were forcefully taken down... but the engine bomb still went off.

    Oh well, that's my theory.

    1. Re:So here's my theory by mpe · · Score: 2

      An insider, possibly a mechanic, rigged the engine with a bomb. Now I'm going to stretch this a bit and say that there might have been actual hijackers on the plane, and that they were forcefully taken down... but the engine bomb still went off.

      Though you don't actually need to put any kind of "bomb" into a jet engine in order to do a lot of damage. Not only is there plenty of fuel in the engine (and in the wing tanks) there is a lot of energy in the fan/compressor & turbine assembly.

  200. Wrong Plane... by PHanT0 · · Score: 2, Informative


    It was an Airbus a300...
    26X people on board...
    9 crew.

    I hate relaying bad news.

  201. Radio streaming feed by timbck2 · · Score: 1

    www.npr.org has a RealAudio/Quicktime/Windows Media feed.

    --
    Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
  202. Re:FAA Rule out terrorism. - HA! by compugeek007 · · Score: 1

    It takes weeks to find wreckage and figure what causes plane crashes (remember Flight 800 to Paris) ANyone ruling out ANYTHING right now is either a blatent falsehood OR propaganda meant to calm the American People

    --
    Jesse Wolfe Sr. Manager Systems Integration
  203. chair force, air farce, chair farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I would feel much more comfortable with Marines or even Army protecting me. Not some pansy whiney little pretty boys out for their own personal careers and egos.

    On the other hand, JSTAR and AWACS crews are generally good because they dont have to ever be in a life or death combat situation where the 'combat' portion of the Farce is too busy demanding their a/c's are fixed along while they eat tea, crumpets and sit in their recliners having their brunch prepared by chefs. pansies... and ironically they think of themselves as the Military... hehehe, what a joke

    1. Re:chair force, air farce, chair farce by clink · · Score: 1

      "Not some pansy whiney little pretty boys out for their own personal careers and egos."

      Great. What a nice thing to say on Veteran's Day. Asshole.
  204. Re:*Leap* by waldoj · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Excuse me but that is just plain bullshit.
    It is actually quite normal for planes to crash every now and then, therefore it is most likely to be an accident.


    1. We're threatened with further attacks.
    2. Two weeks later, a plane crashes.

    You do the math, bucko.

    -Waldo

  205. I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To make us all feel more secure and better, at this point, lets just nuke these assholes. Put that in your pipe and smoke it liberals.

    1. Re:I have an idea by PowerBook2k · · Score: 1

      Would somebody *please* mod this moron down? There were no terrorists involved!

  206. Having trouble getting info from CNN... by wyldeling · · Score: 1

    So I tried the BBC which I consider just as, if not better, at reporting then the american journalists.

    1. Re:Having trouble getting info from CNN... by Legion303 · · Score: 1
      Well, this morning the BBC was incorrectly reporting that it was an inbound Boeing 767. I wouldn't really trust them any more than any other news agency. :P

      -Legion

  207. CBC.ca by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Airbus crashes in New York
    Last Updated:
    Mon Nov 12 10:30:50 2001
    NEW YORK - A twin-engine American Airlines airbus A300 has crashed in the New York
    borough of Queens, leaving at least four homes on fire. No word so far
    of injuries, or what caused the crash.
    INDEPTH: U.S. Striking Back
    LINKS: Websites related to this story
    CNN says the plane had 246 passengers on board and nine crew members.

    Smoke from the crashed 767
    The network says flight 587 was on its way to Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic when it went down at about 9:15 ET, about eight kilometres from Kennedy International airport, in the Far Rockaway neighbourhood. Plumes of smoke can be seen rising from the site.
    The city's mayor Rudy Giuliani says there are two crash sites, one where
    the engine hit and one where the plane hit. He has called a level one security alert, which means all security personnel must report to the
    area.
    He said the city is taking all the necessary precautions and called on
    people to remain calm.

    The plane crashed in a residential section of
    Queens
    The crash comes two months and a day after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The FAA's first advisory said there was no indication that terrorism was a factor, but it later said it was too early to say one way or another. Pentagon officials told CNN that
    surveillance flights over New York detected nothing out of the ordinary
    prior to the crash.
    Emergency crews are setting up command posts and forty-four fire trucks
    and 200 firefighters have been sent to the scene.
    Frightened residents fled their homes in panic after hearing the crash.
    Some witnesses say there appeared to be an explosion or fire on the
    plane's right hand side before it hit the ground.
    All New York airports have been closed as well as the bridges and
    tunnels in and out of the city.
    COMMUNITY PROFILE (filed Oct 2001): Recovery in Rockaway
    Initial reports said the plane was an American Airlines Boeing 767,
    however, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administer later confirmed the plane
    was an Airbus A300.
    More details to come.
    Written by CBC News Online staff

  208. cbsnews.com webcast by TroZ · · Score: 1

    www.cbsnews.com has a real video webcast that seems to be working.

  209. More eyewitness... by Richard5mith · · Score: 1

    CNN eyewitness account...
    http://europe.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/11/12/u s. crash.1211.wav

  210. news link by highschool-bert · · Score: 1

    here's a link to the msnbc coverage: http://www.msnbc.com/news/default.asp?cp1=1

    --
    WWLUG: Feed the penguin.
  211. Crash news via IRC by Ktistec+Machine · · Score: 4, Informative

    CNN live closed captioning is available at #CNN_Newsfeed at chat.cnn.com.

    1. Re:Crash news via IRC by fnthawar · · Score: 1

      Couldn't figure this out right away, but basically if you type #CNN_Newsfeed into a chat room (since you're put into #CNN_newsroom by default), you can click on your text as it appears (it becomes a hyperlink) and that's how you enter that chatroom.

      Farhan

    2. Re:Crash news via IRC by Kinetix303 · · Score: 1

      Or you could just type /join #CNN_Newsfeed

      IRC commands are pretty simple. You can usually get a list by typing /help and then hitting enter. :o)

    3. Re:Crash news via IRC by fnthawar · · Score: 1

      Thanks... sometimes I feel dumb : ) But for some reason, didn't think this was a *real* IRC session, but I guess it is...

      Farhan

  212. Re:Though We Hope Not... NY TIMES URL by zeno_2 · · Score: 1
    Or

    http://archive.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/nyregion/12W IRE-PLANE.html

    Or for the lazy ones

    New York Times (archive)

  213. Re:*Leap* by Eccles · · Score: 2

    Don't get me wrong, I do believe that the U.S. should do anything in its hands to solve the Israeli-Palestinan problem (if only to leave Bin Laden without arguments).

    All indications are that what Bin Laden hates is the current Saudi government (King Fahd, pretty tyrannical and Taliban-like himself, frankly) and the U.S. support for that self-same government. While I would like to see peace in Israel/Palestine, it's not the key issue here.

    Note that in Mazar-e-Sharif, women dispensed with their burqas, went to mosques, and regained the rights they had lost to the Taliban, now that the Northern Alliance has retaken the city. So have a little good news for today.

    --
    Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  214. Easy to determine? by dimer0 · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't a "routine" (cringe) plane crash be easy to determine by the conversations going back and forth with Air Traffic Control? I'd figure a simple radio call with "Oh crap - we've got an engine on fire - attempting emergency landing" would be very soothing (well, in light of recents events) to the nation at this point.

  215. Do you mean bin Laden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or Bush?

  216. News site with good response by str8-and-sober · · Score: 2, Insightful


    As all the major news portals seem to be struggling under the load, check www.ananova.com - it's up, fast and stayed alive during September 11th. They seem to be up-to-the minute with their information too.

    --
    ----------------------------------------
    Religious war: fighting over who has the real imaginary friend.
  217. Re:*Leap* by goodviking · · Score: 1

    replace "protectionists" with "isolationists", damn submit and preview buttons are so close before my coffee.

  218. better response time by CRAssEsT · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i live in brooklyn, and i was glad to see that the sky was full of fighter jets with in 5 minutes rather then the hour+ on 9-11. i know in actuality it doesnt really help anything, but it makes the lot of us feel a little more secure, at least as secure as you can with 5000 lbs of bombs wizzing over head

    --
    --rock me like a huricane? NO rock you
  219. Another source: CNN closed-caption feed on IRC by demonlapin · · Score: 3, Informative

    Try #CNN_Newsfeed on chat.cnn.com:6667 for a live feed of closed-captions off CNN.

    1. Re:Another source: CNN closed-caption feed on IRC by denjin · · Score: 1

      Anyone have a web link for that? I see they have some other stuff on the web chat, but I can't find this newsfeed.

      Darn firewall :)

    2. Re:Another source: CNN closed-caption feed on IRC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love it. I just connected up and this is the first thing I saw:

      OH! OH!
      ( gasps )
      OH.
      AAGH...
      UNH!
      {snip}
      THE REINVENTED CAMRY.
      ONE LOOK AND YOU'RE
      GONNA WANT ONE.

      Watching just the closed-caption text for ads is pretty wierd...

  220. With all of the foreigners.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..working as the ground crew at NYC airports, I have my money betting that it was a mechanical sabotage or bomb.

  221. layoffs in plane companies by kipple · · Score: 1

    it's too early to speculate about terrorist attack/accident/whatever. however, this won't change the facts: people will be afraid of flying for a long time. which means more plane companies layoffs. which means PERHAPS some troubles regarding economy..

    ..and THIS makes the terrorists' game. fear, and (as the name tells) terror is their play. solution? since you cannot run away from a plane crashing, nor from a virus spreading, keep doing whatever you do. if something happens, well, at least your job could have helped someone. and you cannot escape anyway.

    and as my grandfather used to say, "a bomb never hits the same crater twice". So I figure that the 'most dangerous' places are now the most safe.. there are so many places to hit all over the world, the terrorist probably won't hit the most surveilled ones again, since the chances to succeed are few.

    ok, I'm speculating again. but my idea is still the same: keep working, keep living, keep thinking with your brain. terrorist attack or just fear, what's the difference? you personally cannot fight either.

    --
    -- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
    1. Re:layoffs in plane companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No offense to your grandfather, but running your life off superstition is a bit silly.

      Terrorists do hit the same places twice - the IRA and ETA attack the same places in Ireland & England and Spain for example.

      A good target can remain a good target.

  222. Highly suspect article by eclectric · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This article does not seem to suggest *where* they got this FAA Information. Secondly, the FAA never makes the call this fast. The most they might say is "it appears to have been engine trouble" and that would be information they got from the pilots through tower contact. And, even if it *is* engine problems, it doesn't rule out sabatoge, or explosives.

    1. Re:Highly suspect article by SpinyNorman · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately it's going to be tough to knwo who to believe here.. terrorists may claim it was an attack even if it was not, and the FAA may deny it was even if they eventually piece it together and determine it was. The government is going to be torn between wanting to attribute it to terrorism to support the war, and wanting to say it wasn't to help the airline industry and economy recover. In the current climate moreso than ever you can't take news at face value - you also have to apply a sceptical analysis of the agenda of the source, and reconcile many contradictory sources.

  223. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chances are the US government wanted a bit more support for their slaughter of innocent afghans that they decided to have te plane crash as a PR stunt.

  224. ?? by macdaddy · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    I had comment #13 in this thread. How can mine be redundant when the 1st 13 initial comments were mostly flamebait?

    And how did I get an offtopic out of this? Offtopic? WTF is offtopic about what I wrote? I stated what I knew.

    Insightful, not really but it was a positive vote. Thanks.

    Overrated? Well, I suppose so. That's an opinion and you're entitled to it. Offtopic and redundant is just wrong.

    1. Re:?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone once said to me:

      crack, lots of crack

  225. Tested and Embedded URL by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you'd rather not dork around trying to cut and paste it all into your browser See streets here At this writing it's slow.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Tested and Embedded URL by jack+deadmeat · · Score: 1

      Somebody mod this guy up.. I should have done that in the first place.

      129th and Newport- 'bout 10 miles west of my apt in Long Beach.

      I could watch the world trade center burn for days from the roof of my building- watching NY burn is really starting to piss me off.

  226. The United Nations security council... by swagman · · Score: 1

    Hmmm, the United Nations security council meeting's agendawas addressed to confronting the terrorist threat, the current conflict in afghanistan and organising the post-taliban regime. How far is the UN from the crash site already?

    Swagman

  227. Haven't they learned? by Nickey · · Score: 1

    I wanted to see the news at CNN.com, but it refuses. Haven't they learned from the last tragedy, that their server would be down since tons of people would come to browse their websites to see the urgent news? What are these websites for anyway? I know that watching CNN on TV is certain, but I don't have the environment to watch them. (I live outside USA) I tried to watch other news websites, but was impossible also. Does this means that people have to watch TV instead of website(s) to see such serious news that people would read almost simultaneously?

  228. Re:*Leap* by Daengbo · · Score: 0

    Should you still call him a suspect since he confessed on video?

  229. not JUST the initial design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like urban housing, it seems that there are many who do not care or understand the importance of MAINTENANCE and upkeep (which includes personel as well). The reason I mentioned urban housing is because it is a perfect example how a very well meaning initial desire can be turned around to work against that desire if you put in people that care little about results and simply are there to fill their portion of the process. The government wants to do this with airtravel now. Learn from mistakes, do not let your hatered, ego and agenda cloud your judgement.

  230. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahh, if only you were standing next to me right now. I'd punch you in the nose and ask you how it felt.

  231. Re:Slashdot at least works as a tool for correct i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well said Sean. And I totally agree with you 100%. To be honest I wouldn't have known, since I have been been reading other things, but /. seems to be up to handle the traffic. Also it's not like /. posts news 100% of the time, so it's ok if once in a while it happens to inform us /. readers.

  232. Re:What does it prove? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    with no care for any laws we hold.

    And admit defeat by becoming terrorists ourselves?

  233. Re:FAA Rule out terrorism. - HA! by Lozzer · · Score: 1

    You're correct of course. The FAA have now reverted to saying "all options are open."

    --
    Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
  234. why Stockmarkets suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Markets decline on crash news
    By RICHARD BLOOM
    Globe and Mail Update
    Monday, November 12, 2001
    Dow posts triple-digit slide; Nasdaq loses as much as 2 per cent; TSE sheds nearly 100 points

    The major North American indexes sat in negative territory Monday morning as investors reacted to news that another plane had crashed in the New York area.
    Word surfaced shortly after the opening bell that a plane had crashed into Queens, New York -- a burough of New York City.
    American Airlines confirmed shortly after the report that it was one of its flights -- an Airbus A-300 -- en route to Santo Domingo, Dominican Repulic from New York's John F. Kennedy Airport.
    A total of 254 people were on board, Associated Press said.
    At 10:20 a.m. EST, Dow Jones industrial average fell 179.42 points to 9,428.58, as 29 of its 30 components sat in the red. Shares of Honeywell International Inc., General Electic Co. and American Express Co. posted the sharpest declines. Only Johnson & Johnson sat slightly higher, at last check.
    Shares of AMR Corp., the parent company of American Airlines, were off $2.48 to $15.65 (U.S.).
    The tech-heavy Nasdaq Stock Market's composite index was down 29.33 points to 1,799.15 while the broad Standard & Poor's 500-stock index declined 17.95 points to 1,102.36.
    On Bay Street, the benchmark Toronto Stock Exchange 300-stock composite index dropped 66.79 points to 7,142.90, boucing off an earlier morning low of 7,110.90

  235. A similar crash happened in Alaska a while back by transient · · Score: 1

    I can't recall the flight number off the top of my head, but I remember reading an NTSB report of a crash near Anchorage where one of the engines literally fell off the wing.

    Either way it's terrible, but I have to concur with the people who are saying this is a "real" crash.

    --

    irb(main):001:0>
    1. Re:A similar crash happened in Alaska a while back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes,

      It was a Boeing 747. It happened about 5-6 years ago. One of the inboard engines fell off shortly after takeoff, shearing some of the wing with it (I believe it was on the port side). The engine fell into the parking lot of a mini-mall that happened to be closed that day. Some debris fell into residences in the surrounding area. The plane dumped fuel, circled around, and landed safely. There were no injuries at all from this incident (very lucky).

      That kind of failure is much easier to cope with on a plane like the 747, since it has 4 engines, losing one isn't much of a concern when it comes to having the power to fly the plane. As has been stated before, the real danger is in causing extreme structural damage to the wing, or causing severe damage to the electrical, hydraulic, or fuel systems.

  236. "time to buy when there's blood in the streets." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As usual, there's panic-dumping. Stock prices are down because people are being stupid. Despite fear, uncertainty, and doubt running amok, little is different from yesterday, in the big picture.

    So here's deliberate, appropriate action: grab dropping stocks! Prevent further damage to the economy, take importants assets out of the hands of incompetent handlers, and make a little something for yourself.

  237. Posting updates on planenews.com by gilgsn · · Score: 1

    Hello,

    I am getting a flow of information from different sources and posting them on planenews.com

    Gil.

    --
    PGP public key at: http://keskydee.com/gil.asc
  238. Yeah, mechanical trouble. by J.C.B. · · Score: 1

    The reports coming into CNN are saying that one of the engines (left or right, the reports vary) was on fire before the crash. So, barring sabotage, I don't think this was an act of terrorism.

  239. Re:*Leap* by imipak · · Score: 1
    * Which course will perpetuate a cycle of violence and be used to justify further attacks? (Clue: look at the Balkans, Northern Ireland, Israel and Palestine.)

    Well said. To quote Randy Bush without permission:

    Resist the cycle of violence and hate.

  240. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "we are a nation of hypocrites."

    You said it, "hey someone killed a lot of civilians, lets go kill lots of civilians"

  241. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being logical and level-headed about this will get you no where. Especially on Slashdot, but moreso when Pontiac-driving Americans are voting at the polls. Anyways, Bush Jr. is in the White House. His papa bombed a whole lot of people in Iraq and now the son must out-do the father. George W. has decided we are going to bomb the shit out of Afghanistan. And the next elections aren't until 2004.

  242. CAPTURE THE HIJACKER ALIVE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please don't crash the plane into the ground if you have overcome the hijacker. We need to capture the hijacker alive to ask information from them.

  243. Re:thats the thing.. by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    That's not necessarily wierd. People tend to think that if a two-engine plane loses one engine, it can just use the other to get to safety. One engine is a huge loss, especially on takeoff. The airplane won't be able to gain altitude (at least not quickly), and the plane will tend to veer in one direction. Depending on what point in the takeoff and climb-out the engine failed or fell off, the plane may have stalled (lost lift) and been too close to the ground to recover. NPR reported that this plane was in a 60 degree dive when it hit, so that is entirely possible.

  244. Aerial Photo by WebMasterJoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here's an aerial photo of 122nd and Rockaway: click!. The intersection, I believe is just east of the large building.

    --
    I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
  245. Well, if the engine fell out... by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, if the engine fell out of the plane, it was probably an accident. Not for sure, of course, but i don't see how Hijackers could do that.

    It might have been sabotage though...

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Well, if the engine fell out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Not for sure, of course, but i don't see how
      > Hijackers could do that.

      Pilots can jettison engines from the cockpit.

    2. Re:Well, if the engine fell out... by MindStalker · · Score: 2

      Thats bullshit! Certain fighter planes can jettison booster engines. But these engines are part of the wings.

    3. Re:Well, if the engine fell out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Thats bullshit! Certain fighter planes can
      > jettison booster engines. But these engines are
      > part of the wings.

      No, they're on pylons that have exploding bolts and quick-detach fuel lines.

    4. Re:Well, if the engine fell out... by MindStalker · · Score: 2

      Ok, ASSUMING you correct. Why would such a feature be built into a commercial airplane?

    5. Re:Well, if the engine fell out... by Schaffner · · Score: 1

      > Pilots can jettison engines from the cockpit

      Sorry, but that's pure bull. There are no explosive bolts and quick disconnect fuel lines in the engines or pylons. However, the pylon is designed to shear off an engine if a certain amount of force is reached. This is so the entire wing does not fail. But there is no way for anyone on board to control this, it just is designed to shear off.

    6. Re:Well, if the engine fell out... by gorilla · · Score: 2

      Because the alternative is for a malfunctioning engine to cause major structural damage. Converting a minor accident into a major one. There have been many incidents where a engine and plyon has been lost, and the craft continued on and landed safely.

    7. Re:Well, if the engine fell out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have also been many incidents where the loss of an engine caused the crash of the plane, even while bureau expers ascertained that this not not happen...

    8. Re:Well, if the engine fell out... by TGK · · Score: 2

      I would just like to point out (for your conspiracy theorists) that today is Vetteran's Day. Begin conjecture.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    9. Re:Well, if the engine fell out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > There have also been many incidents where the
      > loss of an engine caused the crash of the plane

      Right, because the engine might power hydraulic systems. But if there's a failover so the remaining engines can power flight control systems, it would be safe to ditch the engine.

    10. Re:Well, if the engine fell out... by mpe · · Score: 2

      Certain fighter planes can jettison booster engines. But these engines are part of the wings

      Actually the engine mounts are designed such that in certain circumstances wing mounted engines can "fall off".
      However there are many problems with this. Firstly the wings are designed for the engine to be there (the earliest 747s ended up having concrete counterweights because Boeing's production schedule would have been in a big mess if they'd waited for the engines.) Secondly in other cases of engines falling off they have tended to cause other damage, most critically to leading edge slats and trailing edge flaps. This has crashed 2 other aircraft AFAIK.

    11. Re:Well, if the engine fell out... by mpe · · Score: 2

      There are no explosive bolts and quick disconnect fuel lines in the engines or pylons. However, the pylon is designed to shear off an engine if a certain amount of force is reached. This is so the entire wing does not fail.

      This is very much a "rock and a hard place" situation. Since in the process of falling off the engine can make a very nasty mess of the wing and control surfaces.

      But there is no way for anyone on board to control this, it just is designed to shear off.

      Wonder if there are now indicators of this happening. One of the contributing factors to the Amsterdam crash was the the pilots could not tell the difference between having 2 engines not functioning and 2 engines (and sufficent of the training edge flaps to significently increase the stall speed of one wing) missing...

    12. Re:Well, if the engine fell out... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      What?!? Do you know what a malfunctioning engine does? It stops running and becomes an inert mass of metal. It doesn't blow up, it doesn't go hogwild and shoot fragments at random intervals, it just stops. The worst it can do is catch fire, and if that happens there are multiple redundant fire suppression systems to put it out. The only time a malfunctioning engine could cause structural damage is when it throws a turbine blade, and I daresay there isn't time to "jettison" the engine when that happens. It's far more dangerous to drop several thousand pounds off one side of a balanced aircraft- it makes it a lot nigh impossible to fly. It's safer to leave the engine on the wing and keep the plane under control. Besides the obvious reason for not having ejectable engines (i.e. the laws of physics), there is also the small matter of FAA regulations which prohibit such things. Civil aircraft aren't allowed to have ejection seats either, for the same reason. Do you really think it's a good idea for a pilot to be able to pop loose an engine if he gets a fire warning light and panics? What if he's flying over, say, New York at the time and drops that chunk of hot metal into someone's house? No, they want the pilot to make every effort to get that plane down safely without dropping ANYTHING off it. Ejectable engines. Good God where do you people get these ludicrous notions...

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    13. Re:Well, if the engine fell out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From a Boeing engineer:

      > The main reason for the "Break-Away" engines
      > was to keep the engines from
      > rupturing the fuel cells in the wing in the
      > event of a crash landing.

      http://yarchive.net/air/airliners/el_al_747_cras h. html

    14. Re:Well, if the engine fell out... by MindStalker · · Score: 2

      Sounds more like an automatic system to me, sorta like airbags, you don't want to ever deploy an airback untill AFTER you've crashed. I'm sure there would be no way to deploy such a system from inside the cockpit.

  246. Think, don't react. by darrad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We all need to stop and take a few steps back. The events of the last 2 months have taken this country to the brink of hysteria and back. The mainstream press is in a feeding frenzy. They are reporting any rumor that they can get their hands on, all in the name of boosting ratings. Take a look at the last Presidential election and you will see that the self-control that the press once had has disappeared. We cannot allow their drive for money to turn us into a country full of "Chicken Little's" waiting for the sky to fall.

    Stop, take a breath, and realize that things like this happen. If we allow ourselves to continue down this road, we will accomplish what no country on this planet has been able to do, bring the US to its knees. People are paralyzed by fear, and the press is feeding this fear. It is time to stop.

    Yes, it is terrible when people die, but it happens everyday. Worrying about it will not change it. I believe we should find the people responsible for terrorist attacks and bring them to justice, but not at the cost of our freedom, which is where we are headed. I have heard more members of the press and the government shouting for "National ID Cards", increased security at all public functions, COMDEX banned bags from the convention floor. All of these steps are doing the terrorist work for them. If we allow these criminals to alter our way of life to the point that we cease to function, or regulate ourselves into and Orwellian nightmare then we may as well lie down and die.

    Live you life as you always have. Go to work, raise your kids, spend your money, and be happy until given a legitimate reason not to be. Out of all the posts on this site, how many are from people directly affected by 09/11, who either knew someone who is missing, or has family that lost a loved one. The rest of us need to feel sympathetic to the victims and their families, but we should also feel grateful that we are alive, living in the best country on the planet, and act that way.

    1. Re:Think, don't react. by majcher · · Score: 1

      The events of the last 2 months have taken this country to the brink of hysteria and back.

      Good post, but I'm not entirely sure about that "and back" part...

    2. Re:Think, don't react. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      living in the best country on the planet

      Errr... according to studies and research, I think you mean the 6th best country in the world.

    3. Re:Think, don't react. by evilviper · · Score: 2
      If we allow ourselves to continue down this road, we will accomplish what no country on this planet has been able to do, bring the US to its knees.

      Hmmm, sound anything like The Roman Empire to you? There has been some amazing parallels between the USA and the Roman empire, and the end may very well be the same.

      I have heard more members of the press and the government shouting for ?National ID Cards?, increased security at all public functions, COMDEX banned bags from the convention floor.

      Live you life as you always have. Go to work, raise your kids, spend your money, and be happy until given a legitimate reason not to be.

      That's funny, I haven't heard of a single politican rallying for ID cards... The only ones suggesting them have been business that want to provide them. Not only is the USA NOT shouting for increased security, they are in fact shouting for us to ignore the complete lack of security, and go on acting like a bunch of cattle. Don't worry about the fact that the FAA as taken no steps (which would be quite easy) to attempt to secure airlines against attacks... Just throw money at them... Forget the fact that this is a capitalist system and whatever you do, don't go with another company just because of their better security. Indeed it's people such as yourself that ignore blatant security holes which enabled terrorists to do what they've done. More ignorance is not going to help anyone (except the big companies that will be happy to take your money, which you so patriotically and ignorantly spend). The history of business is simple, they do everything that the government and consumers will allow them to do. If you keep buying tickets, what's to make airlines give a damn about security?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:Think, don't react. by darrad · · Score: 1

      There is more in common between the US and the Roman empire than any of us should be confortable with.

      And I am not blind to security risks. But I do know when something is an answer to a problem, and when it is a patch to make the people feel better, and I have not heard any of the former since 9/11.

      The point is, if we do make major changes to secure the nation against these types of attacks we will do nothing more than become what we hate.

      If the politicians and the press would pay attention to punishing those responsible, and make the punishment so painful that the next person who thinks about commiting this type of crime will think twice, then you have solved the problem.

    5. Re:Think, don't react. by evilviper · · Score: 2
      The point is, if we do make major changes to secure the nation against these types of attacks we will do nothing more than become what we hate.

      What's wrong with forcing the FAA to require Sky Marshals on planes, better security at the gates, and some other security measures. The claim you make has been made by many others in every possible case. There are those that said the same thing when drugs were outlawed, said the same thing when slavery was outlawed... The truth is, our rights don't have to be violated to ensure security. In fact, voilating our rights in no way helps security anyhow.

      If the politicians and the press would pay attention to punishing those responsible, and make the punishment so painful that the next person who thinks about commiting this type of crime will think twice, then you have solved the problem.

      The only problem with that statement is that there is no punishment so harsh that it will completely stop everyone. Even if it meant tourture and death, Bin Laden would still have done the same thing. Only he might have made the plot even bigger since he'd know he wouldn't have a second chance.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:Think, don't react. by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      ---There is more in common between the US and the Roman empire than any of us should be confortable with.---

      Um, like what, exactly? The only major real similarity I can think of is that we are a diverse nation, and the empire was very diverse for its day and age. Otherwise, there's world's of difference. Even our diversity is very very different, seeing as we don't have slavery or this concept of "only Romans get to be citizens." We have a VERY VERY different sort fo political culture, military history, foriegn political environment, technology, economy, etc. The Roman empire, it wasn't even possible to have a recession as we have it today: almost all their economic troubles came from supply side problems, where almost all of ours come from demand side problems.

      The only people I've seen take this whole "remember the roman Empire" thing seriously are evangelicals, and they're praying for the collapse of civilization anyway.

    7. Re:Think, don't react. by evilviper · · Score: 2
      I'm not going to give you a history lesson here... But I will address some of the shit you're spreading.

      we don't have slavery or this concept of "only Romans get to be citizens."
      No? Last I checked the borders are getting closed tighter and tighter.
      We have a VERY VERY different sort fo political culture, military history, foriegn political environment, technology, economy, etc.
      Culture: Bread and circuses/Fast food and TV Military: #1 World power/#1 World Power Foreign Politics: Not a big concern for the Romans which took over every bit of the world they saw. Technology: Most advanced of their time/Most advanced of our time
      The Roman empire, it wasn't even possible to have a recession as we have it today: almost all their economic troubles came from supply side problems, where almost all of ours come from demand side problems.
      Well in that case, Gasoline should be dirt cheap... Wonderful. And produce should be cheap, as well as electricity in California, and natural Gas.

      As far as slavery... They had human slaves, we've got machines and computers that do much of our work. Just a few more advancements and the machines will run themselves. Sound familiar? Take a history lesson damit.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    8. Re:Think, don't react. by norcal · · Score: 1

      Live you life as you always have. Go to work, raise your kids, spend your money, and be happy until given a legitimate reason not to be. Out of all the posts on this site, how many are from people directly affected by 09/11, who either knew someone who is missing, or has family that lost a loved one.

      Maybe there aren't many posts on slashdot from people who were somehow involded with the WTC or Pentagon attacks, but maybe there should be. There were 50k people who worked in buildings that are now two smoking holes in the financial district, and many other hundreds of people involved with the disaster recovery efforts. Maybe the reason you dont see their posts on here is becasue it was damned traumatizing and not something easily posted like so much trite on slashdot. Maybe its because THEIR WHOLE IT DEPARTMENT WAS COMPLETELY VAPORIZED.

      Being a SF transplant, I moved to NYC just in time to experience the aftermath as this stunned city tries to cope with the terror that has been rained upon it. So, while your worrying about having a bag of the newest geek toys to show off at comdex, the hundreds of missing posters I pass every morning show that some people have more real fears on their mind. When more plains start hitting populated areas, its upsetting to say the least. Just because you don't have personal knowledge of the attacks, do not presume that people here in the city can just Live you life as you always have.

    9. Re:Think, don't react. by MrPotatoeHead · · Score: 1

      My old college roomate was a victim of the WTC and i just attended a memorial service in his memory two weeks ago. To tell you the truth, when i heard this morning the words "plane crash" and "Queens", where my parents live, my heart plunged.

      Frankly i was glad for all the news reports that came flooding through every single channel - and contrary to popular opinion about the media frenzy, the sense i got from all the news reports was not to panic - rather it may have been an accident as opposed to a terrorist attack. Yes the media may live on ratings, but i did get the sense they have been attempting even-handed news feeds than the complete sensationalizing everyone claims.

    10. Re:Think, don't react. by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      ---No? Last I checked the borders are getting closed tighter and tighter.---

      Oh, whatever. This is your "history" lesson? Comparisons so stretched you could make them fit anywhere, anytime?

      ---Culture: Bread and circuses/Fast food and TV Military: #1 World power/#1 World Power Foreign Politics: Not a big concern for the Romans which took over every bit of the world they saw. Technology: Most advanced of their time/Most advanced of our time ---

      Oh yeah, I forgot about how everything is exactly the same because you say it is. Bread = Fast food. Right.
      If you really can compare, say, the effects of technology on one era to the next by vague categories of "best of their time," I just don't know what to say to that idiocy. SOMEONE's technology has to be the best of our time... and it's the Japanese's. :)

      ---Well in that case, Gasoline should be dirt cheap... Wonderful. And produce should be cheap, as well as electricity in California, and natural Gas.---

      Uh, why? That there are short term supply curves is not even remotely what I reffered to. We don't like in magic-hippy land. Supply side problems in ancient Rome involved massive famine and periodic economy wide labor shortages. But can you find me one example of Rome going through a period of interest rates? A stock market crash?

      ---They had human slaves, we've got machines and computers that do much of our work. Just a few more advancements and the machines will run themselves. Sound familiar? Take a history lesson damit.---

      If I were willing to abuse and mangle history as much as you do just to make a exceedingly silly and simplistic comparision, I could compare living in Antartica in 200 B.C. to living in the Bahamas in 2001 (there are some disturbing similarities....)

  247. Load Balanced CNN by Pickle · · Score: 1

    http://robots.cnn.com/ works fine, seems they have learned a thing or two about load balancing at CNN.

    1. Re:Load Balanced CNN by darrad · · Score: 1

      I hate to do this, but I cannot resist...

      I always thought CNN was balancing a load ...

  248. Just when you thought by Richy_T · · Score: 2
    gas prices couldn't get any lower...


    Any news on how the OPEC countries are hurting from the lower use of their product?


    Rich

  249. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. The plane crashed in New York.

    It's possible that by some coincedence planes keep crashing in New York (they do have a lot of air traffic), but it seems unlikely to be an accident.

  250. engine explosion : missile ? by pricorde · · Score: 1

    Reports says an engine exploded. This could be a heat seeking missile from some loose F16, what do you think ?

    1. Re:engine explosion : missile ? by bill0r · · Score: 0

      I think that you are one sick son of a bitch bastard.

  251. Second Engine by Syn404 · · Score: 1

    It now sounds like both engines actually fell off the plane. This makes terrorism a possible option again.

    I was watching the news, and I believe I heard them say that one of the engines fell into someone's boat in the backyard.

  252. Fear of terroism by MrChris007 · · Score: 1

    Many people seem to think that by being fearful of a possible terrorist attack we are letting the terrorist win. After a recent plane crash in Queens, NY there has already been some talk of terrorism and the fear of terrorism, even though there is no evidence at this point to support a terrorist attack. As I think about this I am reminded that, "A concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that [are] real and immediate [is] the process of a rational mind." Now I don't know that there is always an immediate threat of terrorism, but there is a danger that is real and more immediate now than ever before. A concern for one's safety then is rational, but I keep hearing that if you are rational and concerned for your safety to the point where it affects the way you live then the terrorist have won. If you are not concerned for your safety then you are ignorant, and you probably believe the lie that having concern for your safety does in fact mean that the terrorist have won. So if we are rational people then the terrorist have won and if we are ignorant of what is going on around us then they have not won?

    I think that there is no relationship between the terrorist winning or losing and our concern for our safety. The only way in which the terrorist have won, is in confusing people in to thinking that having a rational concern for their safety is illogical. Living your life as if nothing has happened is illogical. The fact of the matter is that "a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that [are] real and immediate [is] the process of a rational mind", and so this concern which has been fueled by the terrorist attacks does not mean that the terrorist have won. It means that we are logical, competent people who are concerned for our safety. The terrorists are not logical, competent people (and probably have no concern for their safety). The terrorists have only succeeded in confusing and angering the American people, and they are the ones who now should have a concern for their safety. They are in fact facing real and immediate danger.

    -Christopher Mark Beelby

    Quotes from Catch-22

  253. Good Old Fasioned crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No worries, this is just a good-old-fasioned crash, a couple hundred dead, blah blah blah.

    1. Re:Good Old Fasioned crash by CactusHack · · Score: 1

      It is foolish to rule out all possibilities. It is also foolish to completely ignore all of the blaring coincidences.

  254. CNN Sabotage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd bet CNN did it to test out their increased bandwidth measures from the last time this happened. It didn't work.

  255. For the latest, I always turn to Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the latest rumor, speculation, and knee-jerk "lets blow the durn (insert favourite minority group here) terrorists" reaction, I always turn to Slashdot first.

    When I want to find out the real story, I always wait at least 6 hours after the incident when all the falsehoods are proven so and the truth finally sees the light of day and breathes freely.

  256. engines don't "fall off" planes... by deander2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've seen video footage of engine failures resulting in total destruction. The engines don't seperate from the wing. They're designed so that the plane can keep on flying even with total engine destruction.

    Total engine destruction is the fan blades seperating. Imagine 100 blades rotating at 1000s of RPMs flying in every direction. The engine case takes the beating without the wing being damaged. The engine is destroyed but the plane keeps flying.

    I don't know what this was, but it wasn't like any mechanical failure I've ever heard of.

    1. Re:engines don't "fall off" planes... by Alpha_Geek · · Score: 1

      Ummm... actually engines are designed to rip away from the wing if there is violent vibration from them. This keeps an engine from ripping the plane apart along with itself. My father was on a 737 where one engine ripped away from the wing because of just that reason.

    2. Re:engines don't "fall off" planes... by Peter+Dyck · · Score: 1
      Interesting.

      A airplane security expert just said on BBC World that the less of an engine would unbalance the plane so that it would become impossible to fly.

      Anyone know if A300 a fly-by-wire plane?

    3. Re:engines don't "fall off" planes... by Zarniwoop · · Score: 1

      Don't think so. AFAIK, the A320 was the first Airbus fly-by-wire airplane, which was released after the A300. The A300's been around since 1969... don't think they've ever upgraded it to fly-by-wire.

      --
      Still not dead.
    4. Re:engines don't "fall off" planes... by k4m3 · · Score: 2
      The engines don't seperate from the wing

      It depends on the plane manufacturer. Some design the link engine/wing as explosive in case of emergency, some don't. It's not a generic rule

    5. Re:engines don't "fall off" planes... by wmoore · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, No, No! An engine falling off of a plane will not make it too unbalanced to fly. And yes, I AM an aerospace engineer working in the aerospace industry.

      However, it might cause a momentary loss of control. An engine falling off combined with the loss of power from said engine shortly after takeoff has to be one of the worst case scenarios facing a pilot. Combine that with a possible degredation of hydraulic control (due to fire/explosions) and low altitude, it could be very bad, very quickly.

      For a specific example, I remember a case years ago of an airliner losing an engine (as in falling off, not just losing power) somewhere out west. I'm thining it was over Texas, but I'm not sure. It was able to land safely. And for some reason, I'm thinking that was American also ...

    6. Re:engines don't "fall off" planes... by jafac · · Score: 2

      Flight 191. DC-10 out of Chicago, crashed back in the early 80's. Engine fell off. Defective bolt.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    7. Re:engines don't "fall off" planes... by doubtme · · Score: 1
      Actually, engines do fall off planes. It happened a few years back, with UA I believe.

      Basically, Boeing said: "Don't move the engines around with forklifts". UA said "OK" and promptly started shifting engines around on forklifts. This damaged the engine mounts and led to one of them falling off in flight. Naturally Boeing had to take the blame as they couldn't afford to endanger their future sales by being known as the company that actually forces the airlines to do proper maintenance...

      --

      There's no $$$ in 'team'...
      www..--..net - for incisive, w
    8. Re:engines don't "fall off" planes... by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

      The airline was American...the plane was a Douglas (by that time Mcdonnel Douglas) DC-10. It happened at Chicago O'hare...there are pictures of the incident at airliners.net (the search thingy is not working right now though.)

      A DC-10 should be able to lose one engine and continue flying--however the loss of the engine destabilized the flight of the aircraft as well as ripped out a bunch of hydraulic systems. More than losing the power of the engine, the plane was doomed because it was no longer flyable. (The reason for the engine falling off is however more or less stated by you.)

  257. Re:*Leap* by cjpez · · Score: 1
    I suppose I probably should have been more specific when wording my response. I was actually commenting on this quote:
    Not to open a can of worm here, but neither does doing nothing. I'd rather go after the guy who did it than not.
    So I was more referring to the interation between the original post and that reply: "See? Bombing Afghanistan doesn't solve anything" "What, so we should do NOTHING?"
  258. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is quite possibly the most idiotic statement I've ever read in my life. The US did as close to nothing as possible after the first WTC bombing, the embassy bombings, the Khobar tower bombings, and the USS Cole bombings. It didn't work, and 6000 people died very recently. I think it's time for a new strategy.

  259. Chance of being hit by Hugo+Graffiti · · Score: 1
    Stay cool. The chance of getting hit by a terrorist attack is smaller than the chance of getting hit by a 4WD because the driver was so afraid of being hit by a terrorist that he/she was not paying attention.

    Even in peacetime, 35000 people die in automobile accidents on US roads every year. That's the same level of suffering as the WTC attack every two months and yet nobody bats an eyelid.

    1. Re:Chance of being hit by Ubi_UK · · Score: 1

      You are so right

      However ther is a significant difference: at the WTC the the 6000 deaths were actually intended (murder), whereas traffic kills are mostly accidents, i.e. no intention to kill. Still: I don't see much difference between terrorism and civil war, and in that light you should also consider the amount of innocent peoply dying in, for instance, Sudan (3 MILLION).

      If you want to have a war against terrorism, you should also be bombing Ireland (IRA), Spain (ETA) and a load of African countries.

    2. Re:Chance of being hit by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 1


      Ahh, but the IRA didn't attack us, now did they? So then there is a difference? Is there not? You see. The IRA is disarming because they know their money is about to dry up from the United States, a place that used to fund them through Boston. But unfortunately, there is little they can do without money. See, they have to get jobs now, and that takes precious time out of planning the murder of police officers.

      Anymore, they are just the Irish Mob with a political agenda. They're done for. Not too many Americans will be supporting a group of people that are labeled as terrorists in the USA. Which is what they are.

  260. Reading through the posts so far... by PW2 · · Score: 1

    It really looks like some people like that karma stuff;
    *turns head slowly side to side in disgust/disbelief*

  261. Other sites for posting info by Alien54 · · Score: 1

    Don't forget there are other sites where you can post info and News, especially with news coming out so slowly.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  262. From "the city that sleep with one eye open..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Apparently, a total of twelve buildings were hit by the debris in a total of two crash sites -- "one where the plane landed and another
    where an engine landed(CNN)."

    That's kind of a funny way to word it. No matter what the cause turns out to be, it's fairly certain that we've seen the (bitter) end of American Airlines. Also, it appears that the death toll here will once again be horrific. Planes will also be grounded in JFK and La Guardia for at least a week. Fellow NYCitizens; prepare to rebook flights out of Islip, which is much too cold and dull to properly conduct terrorist attacks.

    Without jumping to any conclusions, it does strike me as odd that such a thing would happen on Veteran's Day. A smattering of eyewitness reports so far indicate a mid-air explosion. Stay tuned.

  263. Re:*Leap* by cjpez · · Score: 1

    Actually, the only place I've actually seen that report was on the Telegraph. Could you find that information anywhere else, too?

  264. WRONG by sulli · · Score: 1

    News for Nerds == News. 'Nuff said.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  265. live video feed by rmadmin · · Score: 1

    Here is a live video feed. 56K, 100K, and 300K Real Video.

  266. Other Airbus crashes by c0bw3b · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Don't know if this will be useful to anyone, but there have been several other crashes involving this same plane. Here's a link to a report dealing with this. -cobweb

    --
    ||:|::
    1. Re:Other Airbus crashes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd have thought that after a crash they'd just scrap the plane rather than put the pieces back together and reuse them! No wonder it fell down again. Doh!

  267. Re:Foxnews is reporting that it was an Airbus 300. by osiris · · Score: 2

    i think you'll find that that comment is actually his signature rather than part of his comment. i dont think he was suggesting that it was a non-event.

  268. Think about why you are wrong by daveym · · Score: 1

    Any plane loaded with fuel will ALWAYS be a giant firecracker! Until people are willing to ride in planes without fuel, they will be dangerous...

    ...Even if a plane were constructed out of some impact-resistant uber composite material, what about that 50,000 gallons of fuel? All it takes is 1 spark or a little heat and BOOM!

    And fitting planes with parachutes? What happens to the passengers when this giant parachute deploys at 600 mph? Bags and people flying all over the place, getting killed...what would happen if it accidentally (or deliberately) deployed?

    Instead of criticising airplane manufacturers for rediculous reasons, why not ask the obvious:

    1) Why can't they put x-ray machines in airports for checked luggages so people don't put bombs in them?

    2) Why can't airlines maintain their aircraft so the engines don't fall off?

    Think, man.

    --
    "Chill, Orrin!"---Trent Lott
    1. Re:Think about why you are wrong by Colol · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, or if you're just uninformed...

      1) Why can't they put x-ray machines in airports for checked luggages so people don't put bombs in them?
      They do. In fact, they operate at an even higher power level than the x-ray machines used for screening carry-on baggage. Hence the massive warnings as of late to NOT put high-speed film in checked baggage.
      In addition to X-raying checked baggage, many airports also employ bomb-sniffing dogs and/or bomb detection equipment to screen checked luggage.

      2) Why can't airlines maintain their aircraft so the engines don't fall off?
      As other posters have pointed out, this is by design. What would you rather have -- a turbine vibrating a wing off and completely destroying any chance of survival, or the ability to quite likely make a recovery using any remaining engine(s)?

  269. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The afghans are using cheap knock-off weapons made in pakistan, its a real industry there.

  270. the razor of logic says... by spikeham · · Score: 1

    Occam's Razor says that this crash too was a terrorist attack, caused by some freak carrying plastic explosive in his suitcase. What are the chances that a fully-fueled American Airlines jumbo jet would just happen to crash into a residential area of New York City at a time like this? What's the most likely explanation?

    But it doesn't matter what the cause was, either way the terror of flying will multiply.

    We have been given us a new freedom: freedom from security.

    1. Re:the razor of logic says... by Peter+Dyck · · Score: 1
      at a time like this?

      Uh, and just what makes this time so special?

      If you're going to invoke Occam's razor, it's going to say that this was a freak accident with the engine falling off after a catastrophic structural failure (maybe because of emergency cost-saving cuts in the maintenance by the failing airlines). No pilot can keep a passanger jet airborne if it becomes unbalanced by a weight of one missing engine.

      new freedom: freedom from security.

      If this is indeed a terrorist strike, just watch how quickly the other freedoms we now enjoy will disappear. Freedom of privacy, in particular, will be gone for good although this knee-jerk reaction won't bring back the security.

    2. Re:the razor of logic says... by Luminous · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is an incorrect use of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor dictates that each event be looked at as if it were in a vacuum. The simplest explanation is the engine fell off causing the plane to crash.

      But as H.L. Mencken said, for every problem there is a solution that is both simple and wrong.

      Until further evidence, though, it is better to approach this as a 'normal' air disaster while posting a Lemur to watch for any other threats. This is what the government has done, New York has gone into emergency mode (good idea) but nationally we need to see that this is just like any other air disaster - saddening but not an attack.

      --
      This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
    3. Re:the razor of logic says... by the_great_cornholio · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, Ockham says we shouldn't mulitply entities unnecessarily. So if there is a non-metaphysical explanation (i.e. no spooky forces) for an event, then that is to be preferred. He certainly does not say that we prefer the simplest physical explanation.

  271. Parachutes?!? What ARE you smoking? by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are NO such parachutes. Let's do some real simple calcs. I believe a standard human parachute is 28 feet in diameter, for a human weighing 200 pounds. A fully loaded 747 is around 800,000 pounds, 4000 times as much. Let's see, square root of 4000 is roughly 64, and 64 * 28 = 1770 feet -- ONE KILOMETER!

    Are you so nuts as to think that practical?

    And do you think it could be deployed at several hundred miles an hour without shredding?

    Dropping an egg is one thing, an airline entirely difefrent. A egg has a pretty low terminal air velocity because of the weight per surface area. Comparing this to an airliner is like saying an ant can fall safely, why can't humans? Even cats have a sufficiently low terminal velocity that once they fall past 10 stories or so, they don't fall any faster, and they still don't have a great survival rate. Let's give that cat the density of an airliner and see what happens to the terminal velocity.

    Now as to material. The HMS Sheffield DID NOT BURN due to aluminum. It burned because the Exocet has an explosive warhead which scattered and ignited the remaining rocket fuel. It was not a giant inescapable fireball. Jeez, your hyperbole is incredible.

    It's easy enough for you to worry about aluminum burning, but what does that have to do with airliners burning? Hey! It's the FUEL that explodes and burns, not the structure! Maybe we should all fly naked too, so our clothes won't contribute to the fire.

    As for arbitrarily increasing the weight by getting rid of aluminum, common sense ought to inform you that they use expensive materials for a reason. Don't you think that if they could make heavier cheaper planes that they would? There's no secret airplane cabal conspiring to jack up the prices just to keep the bauxite miners employed. Man, they fret over new seat materials to save a pound per seat.

    As for airplane design not being the brightest ideas out there, sounds to me like they've got you beat at any rate.

    1. Re:Parachutes?!? What ARE you smoking? by aallan · · Score: 1

      There are NO such parachutes...

      While I disagree with the original poster, I'm afraid you're wrong. Parachute systems for 747's are on the drawingboard and have been tested on smaller planes.

      For instance see this article in AvStop aviation magazine, which even has some pictures.

      Some higher resolution pictures of the system in action can be found here; deploying, breaking and decent.

      Al.
      --
      The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
    2. Re:Parachutes?!? What ARE you smoking? by Russ+Steffen · · Score: 5, Informative
      There are NO such parachutes. Let's do some real simple calcs. I believe a standard human parachute is 28 feet in diameter, for a human weighing 200 pounds. A fully loaded 747 is around 800,000 pounds, 4000 times as much. Let's see, square root of 4000 is roughly 64, and 64 * 28 = 1770 feet -- ONE KILOMETER!

      Right! And Wrong. There is a company called Ballistic Recovery Systems that makes parachute systems for small general aviation planes. The system are designed to slow the descent of a powerless plane enough to make the impact survivable. They have proposed a similar system for airliner consisting of five 1600 pound chutes. The goal is not to let the airliner fall vertically, but rather to cancel enough weight to slow the airliner's best glide speed. Slowing the glide speed greatly increases the distance it can glide and makes the subsequent landing slower and more survivable.

    3. Re:Parachutes?!? What ARE you smoking? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 2


      There are NO such parachutes. Let's do some real simple calcs. I believe a standard human parachute is 28 feet in diameter, for a human weighing 200 pounds. A fully loaded 747 is around 800,000 pounds, 4000 times as much. Let's see, square root of 4000 is roughly 64, and 64 * 28 = 1770 feet -- ONE KILOMETER!

      The majority of the weight of a 747 is in support beams, skin, and engines, not in the passenger compartment. The passenger compartment is FAR lighter if taken as a separate unit.

      As such, I remember seeing a design (in Popular Mechanics a number of years ago, early 90s) for a parachute system that would separate the passenger cabin from the rest of the plane and deploy one or two chutes to allow it to land safely. IIRC for airliners there was also a chute for the cockpit.

      The argument against this is cost, of course, but can you imagine what we could have done on 9/11 if we had that? Put an emergency 'eject' button in the rear, that only the flight crew knows about, and when the hijackers took over the planes, just eject everybody. 5000 people safe.

    4. Re:Parachutes?!? What ARE you smoking? by doubtme · · Score: 1
      Hell man, what are you smoking?


      Since when has 1770 feet been a kilometre?! It works out to being only just over 530m (3 feet to a yard, 0.9 metres to a yard).


      At least try for some basic arithmetical accuracy before launching those flames.

      --

      There's no $$$ in 'team'...
      www..--..net - for incisive, w
  272. The Facts by DigitalDaedalus · · Score: 1, Interesting

    People are harping on not jumping to conclusions but let's look at the facts:
    There've been 12 Airbus crashes since 1988 (1 of those was during a engine failure simulation). None of them were landing or flying from the US (bbc article here).
    New York is obviously a major target for air terror. If you consider the probabilities, the most likely is an act of terror. Just my 2c.

  273. an accident? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    i hope so, but..

    if an engine came off before the crash [which could be caused by or cause the explosion] that's damned unlikely. twa800 and that dc10 years ago are the only similar events i can think of right now.

    more likely that instead of trying the harder method of hijacking and aiming an airliner at a building, just explode one on takeoff from NY. the area and amount of gas involved will have the same effect post sept11: terror.

    i'm not fear mongering: the way to react to terrorism is to face it and remain calm.

    that's not easy. it's not meant to be easy. it's the only answer though.

    hard times. speak truth to power.

  274. Radiohead: disaster music (tangentially ontopic) by babbage · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    How to Disappear Completely

    That there
    That's not me
    I go
    Where I please
    I walk through walls
    I float down the Liffey
    I'm not here
    This isn't happening
    I'm not here
    I'm not here

    In a little while
    I'll be gone
    The moment's already passed
    Yeah it's gone
    And I'm not here
    This isn't happening
    I'm not here
    I'm not here

    Strobe lights and blown speakers
    Fireworks and hurricanes
    I'm not here
    This isn't happening
    I'm not here
    I'm not here


    Originally Released: October 2000
    Found on: Kid A
  275. This came down the same way the Penn one did... by darkwhite · · Score: 1

    This is a rather unfounded theory, but it's possible to imagine this.

    The fourth plane that crashed on sept. 11 was about 5 minutes away from the closest nuclear plant on its course to DC. It, too, had an engine break off and crash in a separate location. The government has been very secretive about that crash. There is data that a fighter was following it at the time of the crash, and based on that we can only theorize what really happened.

    It is possible to think that this plane was hijacked, not responding, and a fighter was dispatched to take it down. The credibility of this theory would largely be defined by verified data about the plane's route before the crash - if it suddenly changed its course after going some ways over the water, this would be credible.

    The same mode of failure as the Penn plane may indicate the same fate: a Sidewinder missile (IR-guided) will target an engine and rip it off the wing; also, a cannon (the "cleanest" way to take it out) would probably also be shot at the engine/wing.

    --

    [an error occurred while processing this directive]
    1. Re:This came down the same way the Penn one did... by Peter+Dyck · · Score: 1
      BBC World just showed a closeup of the engine. It's practically intact considering the fall it took.

      I'd say a missile or cannon would have ripped it apart.

  276. paranoia? by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "Plane crash? New York? Bwaaaaaaa! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!

    This might be another way of killing Bin Laden. Right now I figure he's somewhere near laughing himeself to death at this overreaction. Please remamber that plane crashes happen, and this one does not have any of the hallmarks of terrorist action.

    all of the security in the world isn't going to stop murphy's law fromm causing the occasional f*ck up. Flying is still safer than driving, but reading the news may cause a heart-attack if you attribute every tragedy to terrorism.

    Let investigators do their job. In the unlikely event that they determine this to be of terrrorist cause, then we can take the appropriate actions

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    1. Re:paranoia? by aozilla · · Score: 2

      Flying is still safer than driving

      Maybe... Mile for mile, driving is 4 times as likely to result in death as flying. But males are twice as likely to die in a car accident as females. And 50% of accidents are caused by drunk drivers. And 2/3 of people who die in accidents are not wearing seatbelts. So if you are a female, and you aren't drunk, and you wear your seatbelt, driving is safer than flying.

      --
      ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
    2. Re:paranoia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh yeah, and 90% of motor vehicle deaths involve the death of a motorcycle rider.

    3. Re:paranoia? by lijn · · Score: 1

      So if you are a female, and you aren't drunk, and you wear your seatbelt, driving is safer than flying.

      Good, yet another reason to get drunk on planes...

  277. Use the BBC low-graphics site by Webmoth · · Score: 2

    To save bandwidth for everyone and improve response times, please don't go to the BBC's high-graphics front page. Go directly to their low-graphics news page.

    This way, you not only save bandwidth on the page you want to see, but you avoid wasting bandwidth and server hits on the pages you don't want to see.

    --
    Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
  278. Coincidences by YeOldeCurmudgeon · · Score: 1

    News release on media's recount of presidential vote swamped off the radar by the stories on NYC air plane crash.
    Other stories crushed by it include war news like nukes and bio/chemical weapons in Afghanistan.
    On the other hand, it's a great time to buy cheap stocks.

  279. 128th and New Port by luugi · · Score: 1

    I hear that the plane crashed near Beach 128th and New Port.

    --
    Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought.
  280. All bags on this flight were x-rayed by Artifice_Eternity · · Score: 2, Informative

    WCBS-2 (local TV station in NYC) is reporting that all bags on this American Airlines flight were screened before being loaded on to the plane. This is not standard operating procedure, but since 9/11, it is being done occasionally on a random basis.

    Also, another NYC TV station (not sure which one) said a little while ago that the pilot of this flight DID perform a visual pre-flight inspection -- walking around the plane to look for obvious problems.

  281. Stream NYC Fire Radio by Heem · · Score: 2

    www.thebravest.com has live stream of FDNY Radio. I cant get anything now, im sure due to heavy traffic, but maybe someone will have luck.

    --
    Don't Tread on Me
  282. Then you need to change your definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However, through your statement all you are doing is spreading fear. Simply by doing that you are *helping* terrorists, as spreading fear is (by definition) their main objective.

    Their main objective is to get america to leave their countries - you need to change your definition.

  283. Re:*Leap* by mrogers · · Score: 2

    A lack of response guarantees failure.

    Only if you define success as the destruction of the enemy, which in the case of terrorism is an impossible goal. (You cannot destroy an idea, except by killing everyone who has been exposed to it, which includes yourself.) Even if you define success as the destruction of terrorists, the numbers are against you: for every terrorist you kill, at least one new terrorist will be recruited. And you will probably have to kill several innocent people per terrorist, because terrorists don't do you the favour of living in barracks.

    Appeasement to make "other people like us" is guaranteed to fail, and furthermore, makes dirty bastards like you as guilty as the killers.

    Let me see if I understand you: someone like me who objects to the bombing of innocent people is a dirty bastard and guilty of terrorism. Whereas someone like you who openly supports the bombing of innocent people is the farthest thing you can imagine from a terrorist.

    Your type killed millions of Czechs by appeasing Hitler.

    And your "type" killed millions of Americans and Germans by opposing Hitler. Perhaps that was necessary, perhaps it was the right decision in 1941, perhaps more than 55 million people would have been killed if the world had not gone to war. But despite what CNN tells you, Osama bin Laden is not Hitler. He is not the head of a national army. He is a terrorist. His followers live among us, so they cannot be stopped by purely military means. The only way to stop terrorism is to address the issues that make people so angry that they decide to become terrorists.

    Do you think more terrorists like him will follow along if we don't act? Clue: Look at the Carter presidency.

    You obviously watched Ronald Reagan's election campaign before you retreated to your bunker, but I have some news for you: while you were underground, we found out that the Reagan administration sold arms to Iran (yes, the same Iran that took those hostages) to fund terrorists in Nicaragua. Which makes any criticism of the Carter administration for appeasing terrorists look pretty stupid.

    Look at your examples supplied and a culture of minimal response. Clue: Look at Syria. Have a city threatening with insurrection? Exterminate it and set an example.

    Look at Canada. Have a province that wants to secede? Hold an election. Are you seriously suggesting that the US should model itself on Syria?

    For our sake, I'd encourage you to seek the closest bridge, jump and get it over with. Quit bothering us with your fascination with suicide.

    I'm not opposing the bombing because I want to be killed. I'm opposing the bombing because I don't want to be killed. Bombing Afghanistan is drawing people to the terrorist cause and making it more likely that I'll get killed. It's also killing innocent people on the ground.

  284. Inbound? by Svartalf · · Score: 2

    This was a flight that was destined for the Dominican Republic and other destinations in the Caribbean. According to FAA reports, the plane was booked to capacity and may well have had all it's booked passengers on board.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  285. This is likely to be a bomb by saint10 · · Score: 1

    There are several reasons to assume that this was a bomb.

    1) Credible warning of another terrorist attack from Nov 7-14 issued a few weeks ago.

    2) It was an international flight loaded to full capacity with gas.

    3) Luggage on international flights out of jfk are not required to be scanned for explosives.

    4) Wing and fuselage crashed in two separate sites, meaning a great force must have seperated them.

    Im not saying we can be sure 100% that this was a bomb, there are several strong indicators that it was.

    1. Re:This is likely to be a bomb by keefebert · · Score: 1
      Wing and fuselage crashed in two separate sites, meaning a great force must have seperated them.


      If the engine fell off, then it would land before the fuselage, given that the rest of the plane would be able to glide for a bit after the engine was dropped, especially since it had another working engine to propel it further.

    2. Re:This is likely to be a bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a bo? a bo?

    3. Re:This is likely to be a bomb by papa248 · · Score: 1

      Um, get your facts straight dude, the wing didn't separate, and there was clearly an outboard explosion of the engine. Reports state that smoke was seen on takeoff, and that the aircraft reported a mechanical problem after takeoff.

      --


      The higher, the fewer.
    4. Re:This is likely to be a bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      Where are your "facts?" Smoke was seen on takeoff? What is your credible source for that information as I just scanned 5 news sources and have not found anything to back that claim up.

    5. Re:This is likely to be a bomb by saint10 · · Score: 1

      Actually, my facts are straight.. 'dude'. There was an explosion, causing the wing to separate and crash in a different location. You can see it on the video on cnn.

    6. Re:This is likely to be a bomb by DrSpin · · Score: 1
      Almost certainly NOT a bomb.

      I heard one witness say the left engine fall off, and another say it was the right engine. Both said it was on fire first.

      The Police/fire say that there are four fire sites, one definitely having only an engine in it.

      To quote someone whose name I forget "To lose one engine is careless, to lose both is a disaster".

      One way or another, Air traffic control MUST have a view on this: did the pilot say anything or not? We have not been told. Safe assumption - the pilot said something. If he did not, we'd have been told. If the pilot said something, and we've not been told: IT WAS TERRORISM.

      As others have said - these planes are designed to fly with one engine fall off - once clear of the runway. They won't fly with no engines.

      Last time I heard something like this, it was that the thrust was reversed in flight - like sticking your car in reverse at 70MPH - a bad idea.

      One of two possibilities here:

      Terrorist trained on 767 cant operated A300 controls - stuffs up (not very likely)

      Terrorist attempting ot fly into large building - Pilot intentionally renders airplane non-functional in the shortest possible time.

      Some martyrs will go to heaven - probably not many suicide bombers though!

  286. comments from an airline pilot on Spain's TVE by iskander · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One Captain Marchessi was interviewed live over the telephone on Spain's national television, TVE. He said (and I am paraphrasing here) that Airbus planes are designed to survive the loss of an engine, and that pilots are trained for precisely such an eventuality; therefore, he believes, it is unlikely that the loss of thrust alone would have caused the plane to crash. (To his credit, he declined to speculate further despite pressure from the reporter.)

    Now, can somebody tell me whether the phrase "the loss of an engine" in this context could mean the physical loss of the engine? Or is it just an idiom meaning "the loss of an engine's thrust"? I mean -- are these planes really designed to account for the possible dettachment of an engine?

  287. these sites aren't seeing the traffic from 9/11 by cvanaver · · Score: 1

    Two thoughts on this:
    1) Most of the sites are probably more available today than on 9/11 because today is a holiday in the US and many people are not at work. Not being at work means they have reduced Internet access(read: dialup) in most cases, but abundant access to TV. My guess is that most people are at home watching it on the tube today.
    2) Sites like BBC (Brits aren't on holiday today) have gone into reduced-bandwidth mode with limited graphics. This is to support the extra load created by the sudden increased in hits.

  288. How can it happend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What can happened this accident (FBI says that there was an explosion on the airplane):
    A technical failure.
    A engine sabotaje.[May be Difficult because the airports security]
    A bomb in the airplane. [May be Difficult because the airports security]
    A ground-air weapon? (Like russian airplane)

  289. Not to be an alarmist by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 1

    ...but I specifically remember people criticizing all of our efforts to beef up passenger security in airports while neglecting to beef up tarmac security. It was said that nearly anyone can get on the tarmac, and anyone who can pass the test can become a mechanic, often times with no background check.

    It seems more likely to me that if this is a result of terrorst activities, it was done as an inside job. Our own press probably gave them the idea.

    --
    Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
  290. engines falling off... by magarity · · Score: 1

    As nasty as this sounds, it isn't without precedent. In the late 70's, I forget the year, an engine fell off of a Lockheed L1011 at 30,000 feet. Killed everyone... most heinous crash. The maintenance guy who put in the bolts installed them in the wrong order after the engine was removed for an overhaul.

    1. Re:engines falling off... by Quixotic1 · · Score: 1

      Take a look at this. Engines can and do fall off, with tragic consequences.

      http://vtvt.essortment.com/americanairline_reuj.ht m

      Ironically, another American Airlines flight.

      ---

      --
      the sewers belch me up.. the heavens spit me out... from ethers tragic I am born again... and now i'm with you now
  291. What must be said about American Airlines. by bigfrigginfrogman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Worst Airline ever.

    1. Re:What must be said about American Airlines. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously you've never heard of Aeroflot.

    2. Re:What must be said about American Airlines. by bigfrigginfrogman · · Score: 0

      You see I was paraphrasing the Simpson comic book Guy. Frankly, with all the "We're increasing sercurity, so turn your head a cough." talk going around, they really have no defence if someone sliped a bomb on board. Secondly is its machanical error, is even more thier fault. They responsible for the safter of their passengers, mechanical errors are unforgivable at times when they claim to be the most alert. Its an opion, not flamebait.

  292. Re:*Leap* by mmontour · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is actually quite normal for planes to crash every now and then, therefore it is most likely to be an accident.

    A good example to support this point is the Sibir Airlines plane that went down in the Black Sea a month ago. Initially it was assumed to be terrorism (especially since the plane departed from Israel). However the consensus is now that it was hit by a stray Ukrainian missile that got away from its test range.

    So even though terrorism might be the most likely reason for the New York crash, and the first thing that should be investigated, it is not the only possibility.

  293. Re:*Leap* by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 1
    Yes, but (to play devil's advocate) if all you have to do to produce a steady stream of terrorists is have a large pool of poor people and tell them it is America's fault, then Afghanistan under Taliban rule was pretty much going to be a training ground haven.

    The peaceful solution is always preferable. Unfortunately, this would frequently require the use of a time machine, as the opportunity has often long since passed by the time you realise what the solution was. Once terrorists have been produced in the first place, there is clearly something wrong, and merely turning the other cheek just gets you hit somewhere else. The only option is messy patch ups, and hope that eventually the problem will recede.

    I'd like to suggest an easy solution. I'd also like a leprechaun's pot of gold, but they don't exist either.

  294. A great read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I ran across this on John Young's Cryptome--it's a great read, and helps make sense out of the terrorist attacks, and some of what might be going on. It even comments about the possibility of attacks before Ramadan.

    http://cryptome.org/alqaida-game.htm

    1. Re:A great read by nowt · · Score: 2
      from a western, tactical point of view.


      Somehow I think the radical Islamist point of view won't follow these points.

      --
      A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? - Joshua (Wargames)
  295. Re:*Leap* by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

    Here here. If history teaches us anything, it's that force works and appeasement does not.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  296. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if you define success as the destruction of terrorists, the numbers are against you: for every terrorist you kill, at least one new terrorist will be recruited

    This is a nice assertion that many people make, but I've never seen any evidence for. In 1941, I could easily say, "For every Nazi you kill, you'll create at least one Nazi" and use that argument to keep the US out of the Second World War. Sometimes in life there are no easy or good choices.

    Here's my assertion (patent pending), "For each terrorist event that goes unpunished, you inspire another person to become a terrorist." Whee!

  297. Things that worry me. by ellem · · Score: 2

    Note I currently think this was "just" a plane crash.

    1 -- I worry b/c the plane originated from Boston
    2 -- I worry b/c today is 11-12
    3 -- I worry b/c Mike Moran said ...I live in Rockaway, bitch...
    4 -- I worry b/c I am in the Travel industry and my company nearly went out of business on 9-12

    But all in all accident or attack my company is fucked.

    --
    This .sig is fake but accurate.
  298. Perhaps not... by Dman33 · · Score: 2

    Now, I love a conspiracy theory as much as anyone, but this plane did not come down the same way. For starters, this one came down in a heavily populated area on a penninsula. Had the plane traveled for another 45 seconds (or even less?) before going down, it would plop into the water. (Unless of course, it turned and was headed toward land.)

    Also, from what I gather right now, it had only been in the air for 2 minutes. I find it hard to believe that any Air Force jets could get information that the plane was compromised, get into position to fire, and verify that the plane was a legit target before firing within that timeframe. Then again, I am not an expert on these things so perhaps anything is possible.

  299. Re:JHC.... not again. by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 1

    Antony, standing over the body of Caesar: O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth, that I am meek and gentle with these butchers! Thou art the ruins of the noblest man that ever lived in the tide of times. Woe to the hand that shed this costly blood! Over thy wounds now do I prophesy,-- which, like dumb mouths, do ope their ruby lips, to beg the voice and utterance of my tongue-- A curse shall light upon the limbs of men; domestic fury and fierce civil strife shall cumber all...blood and destruction shall be so in use. And dreadful objects so familiar that mothers shall but smile when they behold their infants quarter'd with the hands of war; all pity choked with custom of fell deeds: and Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge, with Ate by his side come hot from hell, shall in these confines with a monarch's voice cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war; that this foul deed shall smell above the earth with carrion men, groaning for burial. Julius Caesar Act 3, Scene 1

    --

    Don't Bogart the fish sticks
  300. Psychological effects of the 11th by NickV · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I knew something was wrong when I woke up this morning and none of the news sites were picking up. There was this awful ping of complete and total fear where I literally felt my heart fall into stomach... something was wrong.

    I ran downstairs and turned on the TV and saw the breaking news. I now know, whenever cnn, msnbc and abcnews ALL don't pick up... and then ny1.com doesn't either... that something awful has happened again in New York.

  301. Re:*Leap* by rty · · Score: 1

    The majority of Pakistani's are moderate. In the latest call for a national strike called by the radicals the crowds failed to materialise. The radical minority are just that and hated the USA before Operation Enduring Freedom and will hate the USA after it's completed.

    "Which course will kill innocent people abroad, in addition to those who have already died in the US? (Clue: look at Afghanistan.)"

    Reports out of Afghanistan suggest tha the Taleban have been comprehensively routed in the North of the country. Humanitarian aid can now be delivered which with the advance of winter means many thousands more will be saved. The Taleban has treated it's population with utter and complete brutality.

    "Which course will perpetuate a cycle of violence and be used to justify further attacks? (Clue: look at the Balkans, Northern Ireland, Israel and Palestine.)"

    There is peace in the Balkans, the IRA is decommissing it's arms - a historic precedent.

    Israel and the Palestinians were close to a deal once and there is increasing evidence that the current intifada may be halted as it has failed to achieve any concrete improvement in the lives of every day palestinians and may have weakened the negoitiating position of the PLA.

    "Is your desire to feel like you're doing something worth the consequences?"

    Yes it is.

  302. the lottery by mt404 · · Score: 1

    You've still more chance of winning the lottery than dieing in one. Speak for yourself, but I'm planning on winning the lottery. I'm staying out of the sky.

  303. Re:*Leap* by jdavidb · · Score: 0, Troll

    Oh, sure, that one guy's post "Leap" is going to polarise world opinion, lead to greater support for radical organizations, kill innocent people abroad, and be used to justify further attacks. I'm sure Bin Laden is reading it right now, thinking, "Let's get 'em!"



    Like a post on slashdot could ever make that much difference.

  304. Re:Signal by beretboy · · Score: 1

    IMO bin laden claimed responisbiliry yesterday so perhaps that was a signal

  305. Links that Always Work by Davak · · Score: 2
    I've had great success keeping up to date with the following two links...
    Forget about using the major networks... get your info from the sources:

    Reuters Last 25 Articles
    AP Wire

    Any others?

    Davak
    http://www.carotids.com

  306. Planes CAN withstand a loss of an enginer by papa248 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A commercial jet is able to withstand the physical (separate) and thrustwise loss of an engine. In fact, aircraft engines are designed deliberately to "fall off" from the wing. Imagine for the sake of argument, that the turbine blades are turning at around 10,000 RPM. Now, stick a Canadian Goose in front of it, so that some of the blades break of an jam the engine so the blades no longer turn. Can you imagine how much momentum (gyroscopic) that these blades have? Suddenly stopping them instantaneously would create so much of an impulse that the engine will twist itself right off. No damage is done to the wing (less some drag) and there is plenty of thrust from N2.

    The tricky part is, if (as is in this case) the engine explodes, THEN falls off, there is likely damage done to the wings (likely the flaps on takeoff as may be the case here) and possibly the hydraulic systems, etc.

    Bottom line is, the plane can withstand flying literally without an engine, but any collateral damage can change the situation.

    --


    The higher, the fewer.
    1. Re:Planes CAN withstand a loss of an enginer by hether · · Score: 1

      A commercial pilot on CNN said something similar to the post above. Loss of engines, as in it physically falls out, are something the pilots regularly train for.

      And he noted that most likely if the engine managed to damage the hydraulics system in some way, be it explosion or otherwise, the plane would have had major problems. Seems hydraulics control most everything on some planes.

      --

      Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
  307. Re:PLEASE: Cut & Paste articles under this thr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The financial times is coping well and has good coverage.

    The BBC is coping well too now that they have switched to light mode

  308. Possible cause by cperciva · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since the latest reports seem to suggest that there was a mid-air explosion before the plane came down, people might be interested in reading this notice from the FAA requiring that modifications be performed on Airbus A300 series aircraft in order to eliminate a possible cause of fuel tank explosion. Judging by the dates on the notice -- effective September 10, modifications must be performed within 18 months -- I'd guess that many planes haven't been modified yet.

    1. Re:Possible cause by snol · · Score: 1

      This is VERY interesting. Anyone know anything more about this?

      Mod it if you got em. Not that this post at +1 will help the parent at +2 a whole lot.

    2. Re:Possible cause by Geopoliticus · · Score: 1

      MSNBC TV is reporting that this plane just had some huge maintenence overhalls done in the past 2 months. October 3rd and some other date. I can't find anything on this on MSNBC.com however. So I would think that this maintence would have been done.

    3. Re:Possible cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      note that these modifications were NOT for the General Electric engines that AA uses on their planes, it was for the other manufacturer.

    4. Re:Possible cause by JackdawFool · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This from cnn.com:

      "Carty [American Airlines Chairman and CEO] said the last maintenance "A-check" on the plane was performed Sunday. A heavier maintenance check was done October 3, and the jet's last major overhaul was in December 1999. Another overhaul was scheduled for July 2002."

      I'd speculate that the modification referred to in the parent thread would be done during the overhaul scheduled in July 2002, which is within the 18 month period the modification must take place. According to the above from cnn, no major overhauls have taken place since December of last year, which was prior to the issuance of the modification requirement. Again, I'd speculate that the modification wouldn't be done during a maintenance "check".

      But of course that's all worthless speculation. Regardless, the link is interesting.

      -JF

    5. Re:Possible cause by JackdawFool · · Score: 1

      Also, the plane was an A300 B4-600, as indicated by this post:
      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23672&cid=25 54 170

      The A300 B4-600 is one of the specific planes mentioned in the document in need of modification.

    6. Re:Possible cause by beddess · · Score: 1

      i don't have a good source for this, but when they first reported on the radio that it was an airbus a300 one of the people at the radio station said they thought there had been a number of recent crashes with them. fwiw

      --
      "Weasling out of work is important to learn; it is what separates humans from animals. Except for weasels."
    7. Re:Possible cause by einhverfr · · Score: 2

      Several other people have noted that airworthiness directives ground planes, so this is not the likely issue.

      However, there is another likely cause. The fule pipe canisters between the fuel tanks and the wings have occasionally been known to crack. When this happens you can expect fuel to leak and explosion to ensue. Furthermore, this would happen at the right place (side of the plane, near the wing) and have the right effects (fire, extreme but localized blast damage including possibly the loss of the wing). FYI Here is a PDF document explaining it.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  309. This site is working fine .. by shaunak · · Score: 1
    --
    -Shaunak.
  310. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is insightful. Who's moderating, teenagers?

  311. Re:*Leap* by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    Even if you define success as the destruction of terrorists, the numbers are against you: for every terrorist you kill, at least one new terrorist will be recruited.

    That is a ridiculous argument. There is no factual evidence to base it on. If you killed every human on earth, there could be no more terrorists.

    It is also possible, even probable that other actions could be taken that would not result in an equal number of people becoming terrorists.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  312. Boston.com update by toddmaynard · · Score: 2, Informative

    Boston.com (http://www.boston.com) is reporting:

    LATEST UPDATES: The FBI is investigating reports from eyewitnesses that there was an explosion on the plane while it was still in the air. AP says the pilot did not report any trouble before the crash, but CBS reports that a United Airlines pilot heard the American Airlines pilot tell traffic control he was having mechanical trouble.

    Logan Airport is open, but there is no service to New York. Some international flights are being diverted from N.Y. to Boston.

  313. Please change the title by Numeros · · Score: 0


    Every time I see the title "Another Plane down" I think it is yet another one.

    Pls change the title.

  314. Accident or Terrorist Action - Airline Safety? by gibara · · Score: 1

    With the present financial difficulties for airline operators, it seems highly probable to me that severe cost cutting will have swiftly resulted in reduced aeroplane maintenance and fewer safety checks.

    Futhermore money diverted into increased security is money diverted from day-to-day operations. The current climate of fear in the US probably makes accidental crashes more likely.

    --
    Programmers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your strings.
  315. Keeping things in perspective by endersdad · · Score: 1
    Yes, it is terrible when people die, but it happens everyday

    Accrding to this site, an average of 110+ people are killed every day in automobile accidents - and we never give that a second thought.

    National Highway Traffic Saftey Association-Fatal Accident Reporting System

    My prayers go out to all the families affected by this :(

    1. Re:Keeping things in perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's those damn daiper-heads and their filthy muslim gasoline! Nuke Saudi Arabia before they terrorize our highways any more!

  316. Only if you live in NorthEast by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I dunno about that... I don't live anywhere near NYC, and talking to real people (i.e. not listening to people on TV) I haven't heard of anyone actually being scared. If you look at the big picture, there really isn't much widescale "terror" to the terrorism; the country is just too big.

    Get away from the northeastern USA, and the only way the terrorism is really affecting most people's lives, is the reaction that it has provoked from the government. The actual plane crashes themselves are just Yet Another television thing.

    That must sound really weird or insensitive to New Yorkers, I guess. But it's true.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  317. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Should we have listened to the protectionists during WWII and not gotten involved?"

    You mean isolationists, not protectionists, and we DID listen to them for 2 years (1939-1941). We only changed our tune when WE were attacked, and American servicemen were killed. Had Pearl Harbor not happened, it might have been years before the US became involved (if ever).

    Remember, the Democrats were voted out of office after WWI - and during the 1920s, it was considered a pointless war that didn't achieve much for US interests. WW2 didn't look like an attractive proposition either for most US citizens until it became a matter of our own security.

    --Philip

  318. Please. by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 1


    If you're so f'n smart, how do we support and fix these social ills? By propping up nice regimes? Is there such a thing as a nice Gov't in that part of the world? Is there anything that even resembles a real Gov't in that part of the world, and not some spoiled oil princes on polo ponies?

    Nice totalitarian leaders and kings?

    That is the problem with that part of the world. Yes. We'll start addressing that problem. Once YOU find us a way to easily do it. Considering that the CIA, FBI, Interpol, all the nations of the world, and the people who have studied Arabic cultures all of their lives can't find a way to reason these people into peace. Yes, there has to be another way. You're a fucking idiot.

    1. Re:Please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying we have to go in there and kill each and every man, woman, and goat, right?

      Hot damn Georgie porgie! Grab your six guns and lets bar-bee-que us some towel heads!

      And once we're done with those goddamn brownies, we can start in on all the other trouble spots in the world. I mean, really, would you miss any of South America if it were "cleansed" by the glorious US military? Nah, I didn't think so... While we're at it, some of those used-to-be-USSR places seem kinda scary too... I don't think anyone would mind if we "disinfected" that part of the world. Then, of course, there are gonna be those goddamn pansy "war-is-bad" hippies back home and in Europe... My solution (and I'm sure you'll love it) put them all into work camps!! That way we can keep an eye on them, and they'll even be able to help "make the world safe for Democracy"

      Ahh, but I suppose you're not quite as extreme as I am... We'll just clean out the brownies for now, and save the rest of the world until after the next election.

      GOD BLESS AMERICA!! YOU GUYS ARE GREAT!

  319. ananova.com still up by uigrad_2000 · · Score: 1
    here's just one of their stories:
    Fifteen in hospital after crash

    Peninsula Hospital Centre in Rockaway say 15 people are currently being treated for injuries from the Queens jet crash.

    A hospital spokesman said none are thought to be serious.

    He stressed it is too early to get a complete picture of the extent of the injuries.
    Meanwhile, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is in New York to attend a UN General Assembly meeting.

    He said: "Like everyone in New York, I was profoundly shocked when I heard the news that an American Airlines plane had come down shortly after taking off from JFK airport.

    "Our first thoughts are for those who have perished and their loved ones who have to bear the news, but our hearts must also go out to all New Yorkers for whom - whatever the cause - this further disaster will have reopened the wounds of September 11."

    Story filed: 16:53 Monday 12th November 2001
    --
    Free unix account: freeshell.org
  320. Re:*Leap* by mrogers · · Score: 1
    According to your reasoning, if someone comes into your house, kills your family, and eats your pizza, you should just sit there and hand them a beer lest you run the risk of pissing them off.

    Of course not. You kill him to avenge your family and then rationalize later that you did it for the good of society. But do you kill his countrymen? His family? His friends? If you can't find him, do you bomb his house? His city? The whole planet?

    In short, if we are a nation that claims to believe in a set of principles above all else, but we are unwilling to fight for these principles, then we are a nation of hypocrites.

    If one of your principles is not to kill innocent people, then it may be necessary to not fight in order to uphold that principle.

  321. Step 4: by Saragon · · Score: 1
    Step 4: Adopt ultra condescending attitude towards other posters as if they are knuckle-dragging psychos ready to fly off the handle at the slightest provocation.

    (I mean, really. Nice view from up on that high horse?)

  322. Federalization by DuBois · · Score: 2, Insightful
    So you think federalizing airport security will make us more secure? Has the Federal drug war gotten rid of the drug problem? Has the FAA kept hijackers from airplanes? Has the Federal War on Poverty gotten rid of poverty? Why is it that the massive failures of Federal programs are always forgotten when some new "crisis" comes up?

    If you want more security on airplanes, arm the pilots. Or even better yet, let those citizens with concealed carry permits carry their defense with them onto any airplane.

    Or don't you trust "ordinary Americans?" And if you do not trust them, why? Is it possible that the American government has indoctrinated most Americans with the idea that they are helpless and that only the Federal government can solve their problems?

    And if you are not an American, what expertise do you have that makes you an authority for Americans?

    --
    The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
    1. Re:Federalization by ScuzzMonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The September 11th hijackers were, for all practical purposes, "ordinary Americans." Timothy McVeigh was an "ordinary American." How do you tell the "ordinary Americans" from the "evil Hijackers?"

      I'm not saying that Federalization is the answer, or even that I'm opposed to CCPs in general, but airplanes are not the place for guns. Federal Marshals with the right ammo, maybe. But even in the right hands, firearms on airplanes are orders of magnitude more dangerous--for all of us--than they are elsewhere. If "ordinary Americans" have to defend themselves on airplanes, they can do it with their hands, and the best we can do is make sure that the potential hijackers are forced to face them on even terms.

      --
      No relation to Happy Monkey
    2. Re:Federalization by czardonic · · Score: 1

      Why is it that the massive failures of Federal programs are always forgotten when some new "crisis" comes up?

      It's easy to get distracted by the equally massive private sector failures.

      Or don't you trust "ordinary Americans?"

      No, I do not. "Ordinary Americans" are far more dangerous to law-abiding citizens than the Feds. It is "ordinary Americans" who are out there commiting violent crimes everyday, is it not?

      I don't trust the Feds to solve all my problems. However, I would pick them over a bunch or right-wing gun nuts any day of the week.

      What you, like most of the anti-government paranoid-vigilante set, fail to realize is that as flawed as the Feds are, they represent a better alternative to profiteering corporations and white supremacist militias. Go figure.

      --
      Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
    3. Re:Federalization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      However, I would pick them over a bunch or right-wing gun nuts any day of the week.

      ROFL! Sounds like you've pretty much cornered the market on paranoia.

    4. Re:Federalization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no logical reason why the governement could do a better job. A better solution would be private sector security with higher enforced standards. Of course the airlines would much rather the government pays for security.

      From a fairness point of view, I don't think government funded security is a good idea becuase people who do not fly should not pay for the security of those who do.

    5. Re:Federalization by wierdo · · Score: 1

      Why I respond to trolls like this one, I'll never figure out...

      I don't trust the Feds to solve all my problems. However, I would pick them over a bunch or right-wing gun nuts any day of the week.

      Heh, I'd trust the so-called "right-wing gun nuts" over the Feds any day of the week. They have an incentive to not look bad, they'd like to keep their CCP. While I grant you that it should be a legal requirement to only load frangible ammo on an airplane, concealed carry holders are better, statistically, at identifying the correct target and shooting the proper person than police are. Go figure....

      What you, like most of the anti-government paranoid-vigilante set, fail to realize is that as flawed as the Feds are, they represent a better alternative to profiteering corporations and white supremacist militias. Go figure.

      While the feds do present a refreshing alternative to "profiteering corporations," it is unfair to paint both corporations and militias with such a broad brush. Just because there are a few wackos out there who are white supremacist, doesn't mean that most militias consist of white supremacists. Nor does some corporations' profiteering make all corporations evil. Nor, of course, does some other human murdering make me a murderer. Your stereotypes bring you to the same level of those you deride.

      -Nathan

      --
      Care about freedom?
      Become a card carrying member of the GOA.
    6. Re:Federalization by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      --So you think federalizing airport security will make us more secure?---

      Wow, you're totally right. and whille we're at it, let's privative the FBI and the military too. I mean, why should national security be in the hands of the GOVERNMENT? Is that crazy or what?

    7. Re:Federalization by shani · · Score: 1

      There is no logical reason why the governement could do a better job. A better solution would be private sector security with higher enforced standards. Of course the airlines would much rather the government pays for security.

      How about this for a logical reason: less conflict of interest. Airlines have to keep shareholders (like me) happy, and therefore have to turn profit. There is always the temptation to cut corners that consumers won't notice to make extra money.

      From a fairness point of view, I don't think government funded security is a good idea becuase people who do not fly should not pay for the security of those who do.

      <sarcasm>
      I agree, we should do away with government roads since those who do not drive should not pay for the convenience of those who do. We should also do away with public education, libraries, art in public places, public sanitation, and pretty much everything other than fast food.
      </sarcasm>

      One problem with this is that the increased efficiency gained by doing things in a uniform manner more than offsets the minor unfairness to those who do not take advantage of the specific service offered. Not to mention the problem that some members of society (e.g. children) simply can't afford to pay for what they need, period.

      Personally, I wish some right-wingers would complain about all the money the government throws away, rather than just projects that take away the ability of some corporation to make a profit. (I guess that's Libertarians - they keep having a hard time convincing people that we should simply shut down the government, though.)

    8. Re:Federalization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Or the DOJ for that matter.

      Oh, wait, Microsoft already bought it.

    9. Re:Federalization by sllort · · Score: 1, Funny
      How do you tell the "ordinary Americans" from the "evil Hijackers?"

      Top Ten signs your "ordinary American" is actually an "evil Hijacker":

      1. Never shows anger; instead inquires as to what building you work in
      2. .
      3. Owns only house on the street the Jehova's Witnesses don't pester anymore.
      4. Won't eat Vlasic kosher dills because they are "Zionist brain control pickles".
      5. Will often mutter phrases like "Death to the Patriots" or "Kill All Crusaders", even when your team isn't playing the Crusaders or New England.
      6. Doesn't often watch Friends.
      7. Relatively uninterested in Christmas; often refers to Santa as "that fat Capitalist fuck"
      8. .
      9. Has a "Nuclear Power: the safe, clean alternative" bumper sticker.
      10. Often complains that women in full biohazard gear are "showing too much skin".
      11. Calls to ask "how do you feel" every time he sends you a Christmas Card.
      12. Has 10,000 pounds of fertilizer in the basement "for the garden"
      13. .
    10. Re:Federalization by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 1

      The were, for all practical purposes,
      "ordinary <sysAdmins>." <Robert Morris, Jr.> was an "ordinary <sysAdmin>." How
      do you tell the "ordinary <sysAdmin>" from the "evil <computer hackers>?"
      I'm not saying that Federalization is the answer, or even that I'm
      opposed to CCPs in general, but <computers> are not the place for <shell scripts>.
      <BOFH's> with the <perl>, maybe. But even in the right
      hands, <shell scripts> on <computers> are orders of magnitude more
      dangerous--for all of us--than they are elsewhere. If "ordinary
      <sysAdmins>" have to defend <their runlevels> on <computers>, they can do it with
      their <emacs editor>, and the best we can do is make sure that the potential
      <crackers> are forced to face them on even terms.

      --

      The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

    11. Re:Federalization by Lish · · Score: 1

      You've hit it right on the head. Bullets + airplanes = BAD IDEA. If we do put Federal Marshals on airplanes (not that I think we should), they should NOT be armed with guns. Stun weapons of some sort, perhaps, tasers, etc. but absolutely not guns. Firearms have no business on an airplane in anyone's hands.

      --
      "This message is composed of 100% recycled electrons."
    12. Re:Federalization by class_A · · Score: 1

      Paranoia is simply acute awareness.

    13. Re:Federalization by autopr0n · · Score: 1

      let those citizens with concealed carry permits carry their defense with them onto any airplane....Or don't you trust "ordinary Americans?" And if you do not trust them, why?

      Do you think Mohammed Atta couldn't have gotten a Concealed Carry permit before sept 11th? What about Tim McVeigh before OK city?

      Or for a simpler question. Do you really think firing a gun with normal ammo inside an airplane won't cause it to depressurizes. Wont cause the fuel tanks to explode if you hit them?

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    14. Re:Federalization by autopr0n · · Score: 1

      From a fairness point of view, I don't think government funded security is a good idea becuase people who do not fly should not pay for the security of those who do.

      Tell that to the families who lost people in the WTC...

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    15. Re:Federalization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Senseless, odd, and random. I like it!

    16. Re:Federalization by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 1

      Actually -- there are bullets designed for use in Airplane cabins. They shatter upon impact and can kill a human easily enough, but they won't cause damage to the Airplane except for possible bloodstains or bullet holes in the seats.

      They're an excellent idea and this crap fear of guns that the media has given to us all only aids the terrorists, and makes us too scared to defend ourselves.

      Air Marshalls need guns. Big ones.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
  323. Re:This is likely to be a bomb (stinger missle) by variable26 · · Score: 1

    What if one or two of the stinger missle launchers that the US provided the afgans, years ago, made it back to the US of A on a freighter ship? What if the best place to launch a missle is when a plane is taking off? What if Stinger missles lock on to engines?

    Then it wouldn't be a bomb...

  324. Re:*Leap* by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 1


    STFU.

  325. An Engine has come off before (on Oct. 4, 1992) by EvilBert · · Score: 2, Informative

    Holland has had it's share of planes falling from the sky.

    Details about todays crash are hard to find but it reminds me of the 1992 bijlmer crash. A cargo plain lost 2 engines and crashed into a building.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/intl/article/0 ,9 171,1107990322-22329,00.html
    From the link above:

    The basic facts surrounding the Oct. 4, 1992 accident are not in dispute. The Boeing 747-200F, carrying three crew, one non-commercial passenger and 114 tons of freight, took off from Amsterdam's Schiphol airport at 6:21 p.m. en route to Tel Aviv. Seven minutes later, both starboard engines ripped loose from the wing. The pilot circled back toward the airport to attempt an emergency landing, but the crippled craft came down in the predominantly immigrant neighborhood of Bijlmer, 13 km east of Schiphol. In an October 1994 report, the Netherlands Aviation Safety Board blamed the crash on mechanical failure due to faulty engine mountings.

  326. Alaska airlines, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, right. Maintenance is not a cost center? The bean counters know it is, and those at the bottom of the Pacific do too.

  327. Firefighter challenge Osama by openSoar · · Score: 1

    Didn't some firefighter at that recent NYC benefit concert challenge Osama Bin Laden to come "kiss my ass - come get me - i live in Rockaway Beach, Queens..."

    i'm sure it's just a coincidence but spooky nevertheless...

    1. Re:Firefighter challenge Osama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congrats! True or not, this will be on an email in no time.

      "Remember that guy who challened Osama, well....."

  328. Redundant redundant rreedduunnddaanntt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One: it was heading for the dominican republic. Why do you post inaccurate info you lifted off cnn/yahoo? Theyre not slashdotted. We can read ourselves, you dont bring anything new or useful why are you modded up to f----ing five?

  329. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am tired of people citing WWII as an example that pacifism doesn't work. The world now is fundamentally different in terms of warfare and media technologies.

    We don't have to treat every enemy as a potential Hitler trying to conquer the world. I for one think it has a future.

  330. RE: bandwidth/capacity test by geggibus · · Score: 1

    I tried to time(1) wget from some newsservers..(only the mainpage html)

    www.slashdot.org 1.070s 80.16KB/s
    www.cnn.com 0.695s 42.53KB/s
    www.nytimes.com 0.935s 108.31KB/s
    www.bbc.co.uk 0.851s 227.54KB/s
    www.aftonbladet.se 0.291s 325.28KB/s (Swedish news)
    www.msnbc.com 3.099s 39.75KB/s (a few 302 which generates extra code)
    news.yahoo.com 1.218s 65.56KB/s

    results are the best of a few tries...
    guess this isn't so scientific but you can get a picture of it..
    since i'm located in Sweden it's no big surprise that the Swedish and Uk servers handles my requests fastest.

    /K

  331. What has this to do with Cowboy Neal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    get serious!
    this is not the badlydriven.noservice.planes.disasterreport.oklaho ma.us

    (real people(=outside US) are reading, pls show some respect, or then i'll post an article about ukrainian train hitting a cow, by accident)

  332. That is a rediculous post. by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's full of factual errors.

    Donald Rumsfeld said that we're unlikely to catch Bin Laden.

    Bin Laden doesn't matter that much, what matters is that Al Queda is destroyed. Bin Laden will probably be killed, an if not his ability to function will be severely restricted and he will no longer have a friendly national government to protect him.

    Many members of the Taliban are no longer in the Taliban and will never be caught

    We are only at war with the Taliban in so much that they are Helping Bin Laden. Individual Taliban solders didn't have anything to do with the bombing of NYC. If they defect from the Taliban then they are no longer protecting Bin Laden. So who cares? What matters is that we destroy the ablity of Al Queda to harm the US. Not kill everyone we don't like.

    Neither Bin Laden nor the Taliban are Afghani.

    The Taliban are pashtoon(sp?) Pashtoon is a large ethnic group in Afghanistan. Many people in Afghanistan identify themselves by their ethnic group. The Taliban was mostly educated in Madrassas (religious schools) in Pakistan, but came originally in from Afghanistan.

    We are bombing innocent civilians who happened to have the misfortune of being invaded by people who attacked the US as well

    It is unfortunate that civilians are being killed, but so far there have only been forty eight confirmed dead civilians. The vast, vast majority of individuals killed in Afghanistan have been members of the Taliban.

    Hundreds of thousands, even millions of Afghanis died in the years of strife. The civilian toll caused by our actions are far less then the 'status quo'. Remember, the Taliban kills people for shit like using a computer or adultery. If the taliban is overthrown, there is a possibility that the number of people killed could be made up for in a year or two.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:That is a rediculous post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree completely! Thank you for your factual and logical response.

    2. Re:That is a rediculous post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost as "rediculous" as your spelling.

    3. Re:That is a rediculous post. by mother_superius · · Score: 1
      what matters is that Al Queda is destroyed.



      Then why are we attacking Afghanistan, when most of the al-Quadians (that might be correct...) are Saudis?

    4. Re:That is a rediculous post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that's where they're hiding, dumbass.

  333. Tickets for free by Dexter77 · · Score: 1

    Does anybody want my American Airlines recently bought tickets for free?-)

    1. Re:Tickets for free by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Memememmemememe

      What's the date/dest?

      I'm looking for flights near the err White House, if you have tickets for these flights in your _own_ name, i am very interested

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  334. Re:*Leap* by mrogers · · Score: 1

    Yes, of course it's just an assertion. So is every other sociological "fact". I assert that if you asked members of the IRA why they became terrorists, most if not all would cite Britain's history of oppressing the Irish people, including the killing of suspected terrorists. Terrorists are volunteers fighting for a cause they passionately believe in, while most Nazi soldiers were conscripts, so my assertion applies better to terrorists than to Nazis.

  335. But it does make you think.... by kaladorn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    American Airlines - prior target.
    NYC - prior target.
    Outbound flight loaded with fuel presumably.


    I've heard their was a meeting of a bunch of arab leaders to discuss the fate of Afghanistan at the UN.

    I've also heard (CBC) that Rudy Giuliani (sp?) and Pres Perwez Musharef (sp?) were to tour Ground Zero more or less at the time of the accident.

    Also the district where things landed is a shopping district - another symbol of capitalism.

    And the eyewitnesses have reported seeing flames from the planes sides. I'm imagining a bomb or a bit of sabotage could easily have caused such an effect.

    According to an aviation expert from the USA, interviewed by CBC, the Airbus has a very good safety record and there haven't been (with US carrier's Airbuses anyway) any accidents of this nature.

    Now, this doesn't prove anything. In fact, it doesn't even produce a convincing allegation. But it is certainly an interesting combination of facts. If it is mechanical failure not caused by any hostile agency, then it is just an ugly coincidence and NYC is just having more than its fair share of horrendous luck.

    I'll be anxious to see how this all comes out in the wash.

    And I extend my sympathies to anyone affected directly by this tragedy. Regardless of how it came to be, it is quite horrific. :(

    Tomb

    --
    -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
    1. Re:But it does make you think.... by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 1

      And the eyewitnesses have reported seeing flames from the planes sides. I'm imagining a bomb or a bit of sabotage could easily have caused such an effect.

      According to an aviation expert from the USA, interviewed by CBC, the Airbus has a very good safety record and there haven't been (with US carrier's Airbuses anyway) any accidents of this nature


      s/Airbus/Concorde/g

      --
      Just junk food for thought...
    2. Re:But it does make you think.... by deaddrunk · · Score: 1

      Spare us the US-centric bullshit please. People have died and scoring cheap points against the Europeans is not welcome at this time.

      --
      Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
  336. Re:*Leap* by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    and increasing the available pool of terrorists.

    They already have a large enough pool.

    Besides, they need a lot more then people to wage a war.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  337. Re:*Leap* by mrogers · · Score: 1
    If you killed every human on earth, there could be no more terrorists.

    That doesn't invalidate my argument, it just provides a limiting case. If you killed every human on earth apart from one, do you think that person would try to kill you?

    It is also possible, even probable that other actions could be taken that would not result in an equal number of people becoming terrorists.

    I agree, and I hope the US government looks at all possible courses of action, not just military retaliation. The recent diplomatic pressure on Israel is an encouraging sign.

  338. Re:thats the thing.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, losing one engine is not a problem as long it only involves loss of power. Physical separation is extremely dangerous for flight characteristics change instantly and pilots don't have much time to react to this ( specially on takeoff.)
    Physical separation of engine is what caused the deadliest crash in US history. Read about it at http://www.airsafetyonline.com/indepth/ayers/191.s html.

  339. Unverified and probably false... by CokeBear · · Score: 1, Troll
    This is an unverified, and probably false report, but this being Slashdot, it has to be said.

    On the radio just now, some dude in New York was being interviewed and said he saw a truck with a thing sticking out of it like a missle.

    This raises the possibility that the plane was shot at from the ground.

    Obviously major news organizations will not report this, even if it turns out to be true. Did anyone else hear this report?

    --
    Reality has a liberal bias
    1. Re:Unverified and probably false... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's classic!

      "This is an unverified, and probably false report..."

      Come on -- how is that in any way valuable?

    2. Re:Unverified and probably false... by CokeBear · · Score: 2
      It will be valuable to historians, looking back on this event.

      If it turns out to be true, it will be evidence that someone was aware of the possibility as early as [date stamp of original message].

      --
      Reality has a liberal bias
  340. Which course of action will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    kill the currently active force that seems to continue to want to wreak havoc and destruction on your people?


    Please understand that there is no logic or reason to be employed with a party that recognizes neither logic or reason. There aren't any WORDS that are going to stop a radical zealous lunatic from killing you. You have to end this threat by killing it, otherwise it will continue to kill your people.

  341. Maybe we should all fly naked too... by zTTTz · · Score: 1

    Maybe we should all fly naked too, so our clothes won't contribute to the fire.
    I think this should become an immediate FAA enforced regulation. Like all regulations it must be highly restrictive and have details such as:

    Only woman over the age of 18 will fly naked. This will reduce the amount of combustable clothing by roughly 50%.

    Those woman of excessive age or weight will be distributed a brown paper bag approximately 6' tall made of recycled materials upon baggage check in.

    Any woman uncomfortable with being nude will be given a selection of clothing as part of the cost of their plane ticket that includes thongs, g-strings, teddys, etc.

    Extremly bitchy, feminist woman will be gagged and put on patrol in the cargo area to check for bombs.

    Men who insist the above rules are too sexist will have to join their female partners by wearing raw fire-proof fiberglass insulation outfits with floppy ears and a tail.

    These regulations will serve an added bonus of distracting terrorists and relieving tension on flights. Furthermore, it will contribute to the overall wellness of our economy as middle-aged men by the thousands will begin purchasing round trip tickets to random locations as well as drinks on those flights and the occasional hotel room during layovers.

  342. appropriate response? by frankie · · Score: 2
    if someone comes into your house, kills your family, and eats your pizza, you should just sit there and hand them a beer

    No. A better analogy is: "if someone car-jacks your sister and drives off a cliff, should you shoot his mom?"

    Should we have not fought the Civil War? [or WW2 or Revolutionary War]

    Afghanistan in 2001 is much Much MUCH more like Vietnam in 1961 than it is like Europe in 1941 or America in 1861. Think about that.

    1. outfight the enemy? Doable (for the most part).
    2. know who the enemy is, and where they are? Problem.
    3. prevent the enemy from rising up later? Problem.
    1. Re:appropriate response? by RickHunter · · Score: 1

      No. A better analogy is: "if someone car-jacks your sister and drives off a cliff, should you shoot his mom?"

      Depends. Did my sister die? Did his mom, out of a hatred for my family, encourage him to kill himself in an attack on us, taking as many of us with him as possible? Would she encourage his siblings to do the same?

      The situation's very complicated. IMHO, we need to wipe out the organization responsible for the Sept. 11th attacks, without damaging any innocents around them. Then we need to re-examine our foreign policy, and adjust it so we don't create any more Bin Ladens or Afghanistans, and maybe actually take actions in line with our stated principles of democracy and freedom this time!

    2. Re:appropriate response? by goodviking · · Score: 1
      Afghanistan in 2001 is much Much MUCH more like Vietnam in 1961 than it is like Europe in 1941 or America in 1861."

      No it isn't, and saying that it is doesn't make it true. The moral arguments for war in Vietnam were murky. In this case we have group of mass murderers who have expressed their desire and intent to keep on indiscriminately killing.



      "know who the enemy is, and where they are? Problem."

      Intelligence is a fundamental problem in any war. The fact that the enemy is not going to line up holding bullseyes is not a sufficient argument to say that it is somehow immoral for us to fight this war. It would only suggest that we devote more resources to developing better intelligence.



      "prevent the enemy from rising up later? Problem."

      If someone is going to say that they are driven by some supernatural force to kill you, then regardless of what you do, they are going to try to kill you. You can't sit down and have a rational argument with someone who's motovations are irrational.

    3. Re:appropriate response? by zulux · · Score: 2

      No. A better analogy is: "if someone car-jacks your sister and drives off a cliff, should you shoot his mom?"

      Possibly. In all seriousness, people who raise degenerate childern should be held accountable ( unless there are mitigating circumstances.) If the crajacker was just a bad apple then the mom should be given sympathy - but if the carjacker was on of a group of crappy childern, then, in a just world, the mother shoud be given a lawsuit.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    4. Re:appropriate response? by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      Well, the reality is that there is NO WAY to bomb all the terrorists and not kill innocents. (This is quite different from targeting innocnets and killing some govt. officials / military terrorists as collateral damage which is essentially what Osama did to us.)

      What you hope to do is keep that number at a minimum, but the fact is that it will never be zero.

      An analogy would be crime. Would you not put ANYONE in jail for the fear of putting one innocent person in jail? Of course not. That would be silly.

    5. Re:appropriate response? by frankie · · Score: 2
      The moral arguments for war in Vietnam were murky.

      Sounds just like what you're saying now, IMO. "If we don't stop the [communists/terrorists] this time, they'll go on to [conquer the world/blow up more stuff], so we have to [send in the military/send in the military]".

      In any case, I don't give a rat's ass about the moral arguments. If they mattered (other than as propaganda), we would have dragged Saddam out of Baghdad (and not supported him in the first place).

      I'm talking about practical chances of success, and that's where the Vietnam analogy fits like a glove. We have no idea where the al Qaeda leaders are hiding. If we start getting close, they can hide in several other countries. And even if we catch them, there's plenty of other guys ready to take their place.

      But most importantly, take a look at Vietnam today. They're turning capitalist. They love cell phones and american stuff. We lost with guns; we won with butter.

      If someone is going to say that they are driven by some supernatural force to kill you,

      More propaganda. Islamic militants don't "hate freedom", and all that "Allah commands you" stuff is just there to recruit more Red Shirts.

      The leaders do it because American foreign policy often results in a whole bunch of refugee muslims who are willing to be led. If the CIA had kept out of Afghanistan in the 1980s, today it would be another poor but stable former Soviet state (like all of the other *stan's to the north of it).

      The War on Terrorism (tm) is going to be just like the War on Drugs.

    6. Re:appropriate response? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better analogy is: "if someone car-jacks your sister and drives off a cliff, should you shoot his mom?"

      Excellent analogy. Except we need to be a bit more precise. Let's try this:

      "Someone blows up your house with your wife and kids in it, hides in the house of a neighbor who used to give him food and shelter (even though the neighbor knew this guy was occasionally killing a few folks in neighboring towns - after all, the extra room and board income was welcome!), and continues shooting and killing your neighbors while the neighbor and his family are there. The adult male neighbor refuses to hand him over, and threatens to kill your cousins and the rest of the community if you don't leave them be. He tells his wife and kids that they're all going to die to be martyrs, but it is ok because they're going to get to see Allah that way. One of the neighbor's kids bolts and runs out the back door, trying to escape. The neighbor shoots him down and tells his wife and remaining kids that they either stay and die like heros, or he'll gun them down too."

      What do you do?

      Wait it out?

      Oops. You just killed another innocent neighbor family through inaction.

      Now what? Beg for cooperation?

      Whoops. There goes a suitcase nuke. Atlanta wasn't that nice anyway, right?

      Threaten to be "really, really mad"?

      Poof. Where'd they get two suitcase nukes?

      Send over a dozen cruise missiles and take out an empty terrorist camp?

      Hey, what are all those funny rashes that all the kids at school have got. What do you mean they don't have smallpox vaccinations?

      Please do tell me: When does your kind finally decide that enough is enough, or do you keep up the relativism until the very end?

      Much MUCH more like Vietnam in 1961 than it is like Europe in 1941 or America in 1861. Think about that.

      Done. Actually, I understand it is easier to frame things from the reference point of WAR=BAD, and Vietnam is a favorite example that suits this fatalistic view. Let's try another more appropriate one: US revolutionary war.

      The US fought without following the then generally accepted rules of engagement. Too many skirmishes where they'd run away instead of die. Countless cowardly examples of ambushes. Etc.

      The British chose to withdraw instead of recognize the fallacy of their system. The US won by default.

      Napoleon's victories were through the same unconventional strategy. In this manner, I am concerned that the current US response is too little and too conventional.

      It takes extreme response and horrific consequence to get to these people. Highly visual reminders that their perverted idealism may not indeed be correct. Recall how Count Vlad provided the encroaching Turks with numerous "bodies on a stick" as an illustration of what messing with him would merit.

      Take an OBL operative who chooses not to talk. He's ready for Allah? Put CSPAN to use. Start "de-skinning" him and take a few weeks to get the job done. Make a chair out of the product and send it to Saddam as a gift.

      Only by willing to go the extra mile and show unusual determination will the Americans win this war.

    7. Re:appropriate response? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We lost with guns; we won with butter.

      According to Bin Laden and most of the Islamic spokespersons on teevee, the reason the war has been declared upon us is because of our butter.

      They do not want our food. Our McDonalds. Our Pepsi.

      They abhor Hollywood and its perversion. While the liberals seek to understand and relate (like NPR sharing Afghani poetry), they do not understand: THEY are the cause of Islamic hatred.

      Isn't it odd - the liberal feared an attack by the American right and instead was hit by Islamic purists?

      The War on Terrorism (tm) is going to be just like the War on Drugs.

      How is a misguided, heavy-handed effort to police American behaviors comperable to a response to a major attack by a foreign organization on our country?

      Oh wait, I get it!

      The War on Terrorism will be as murky, threatening and confusing to relativists as is the War on Drugs. It will scare the relativist about his liberties being stolen like the government stealing his drug supply is. It will force him to pay more for his deviance, force him underground where he can get his narcotics, child sex (sorry, "intern" affair is the preferred term), and other sources of destruction.

      Duh. Should have seen that one right away!

    8. Re:appropriate response? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The War on Terrorism (tm) is going to be just like the War on Drugs"

      Bollocks - observe:

      War on Drugs- US gives Taliban $43M May 2001 to fight the "War on Drugs"

      War on terrorism- US bombs everything slightly foreign and middle-easty to make themselves feel better

    9. Re:appropriate response? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adjust policy?

      Lets see thier problem is we want/try to influence the rest of the world, yet they use Bio warfare, maim criminals and women, cultivate opium as the major(sole?) cash crop, deprive people of basic edjucation, not to mention street side excecutions and countless things I'm sure i've overlooked or blocked out.

      Now i may be overly influence beacuse I am a good ole fasion american redneck, but WTF quit beating the women, put the criminals to work replaceing the opium with wheat and other food products, and edjucate your people. They want to be isolated, no problem show some stability (mental atleast) and the whole world will leave you to rot, look at the shakers(sp). Of course without the education they won't get "the big picture", and may well rot away from simple diseases or revert to instability.

      I really see no course of action but to remain steadfast in pushing human rights across the globe, for no other reason than what COULD happen if we don't.

    10. Re:appropriate response? by frankie · · Score: 1
      They do not want our food. Our McDonalds. Our Pepsi.

      Wrong. Sure, there are a handful of fundamentalists who sincerely think that the commercialist lifestyle is a capital crime. Similarly, there are some in the US who believe that God hates fags (of course, the same people eat shellfish, wear poly-cotton blends, and don't support slavery). But I digress.

      Do you know why Timothy McVeigh became a terrorist? Because he couldn't pass the physical for Army Special Forces. That's all it took to swing a man 180 degrees. Exclusion --> Bitterness --> Hate --> Revenge.

      It's the same for 90% of US-haters in the world. They'd love to have some of the western luxury that they see on BayWatch. But they live under a regime that stays in power thanks to US support.

      Compare to Iran. 20 years ago they hated us fiercely. We left them to do their own thing. Today the younger 50% of the population loves american stuff. Another 10 years for a few more old ayatollahs to die and we'll be best pals.

      Unless we piss them off again with gunboat diplomacy.

    11. Re:appropriate response? by RickHunter · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying we shouldn't do it if we can't avoid killing innocents. I'm saying we should try to avoid killing innocents, to make the distinction between US (we're taking out those who hurt us and are trying to destroy us, and trying as hard as we can not to hurt anyone else) and THEM (blow them all up! The more the better! As long as infidels die, who cares what else happens?)

      Unfortunately, killing's a bit different from throwing someone in jail. The later is reversable, the former is (regretably) permanent.

      Thanks for the reasoned and measured reply. Judging from most of what I've seen here and on Kuro5hin, the anti-US zealots are out in full force, for no apparent reason than the fact that America has deployed military forces in someone else's country.

  343. Slashdot needs a "-1 Retarded" mod option. by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This post is so full of factual errors it's astounding.

    But someone already addressed them all before me.

    I'm just suggesting a new moderation category.

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    1. Re:Slashdot needs a "-1 Retarded" mod option. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, how are you supposed to moderate posts that are sincere, but just full of shit? "offtopic", "troll", and "flamebait" are inappropriate, and "overrate" is just lame, especially if the post hasn't been moderated up yet. You could just leave it, but that's stupid too, especially if the post is starting at a 2. How about it? Get rid of "over/underrated", and add "-1, Wrong".

    2. Re:Slashdot needs a "-1 Retarded" mod option. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've long requested a -1, Shill category.

  344. Re:Nuke them now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's talking about Canada, even if they aren't the cause of the crash, we still need to nuke them.
    You want to blow up Canada? Oh, now thats original... do the world a favour and commit suicide dumbass...

  345. What's up with this black box? by luugi · · Score: 2, Informative

    With all the technology we have now, how come we are still looking for that stupid black box? How come the information that is in the black box is not routed wirelessly directly to the airport control towers?

    --
    Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought.
    1. Re:What's up with this black box? by slow_flight · · Score: 1

      Because that would result in a flood of data that would be useless 99.99999% of the time. It would also cost a ton, and that is money that can be better spent elsewhere. That said, there are airlines that monitor specific maintenance data on engines real-time so they can have repair crews standing by at the gate if a failure is detected.

      --

      Karma: Professionally Doomed (mostly affected by inability to keep opinions to self)
    2. Re:What's up with this black box? by snake_dad · · Score: 1
      With all the technology we have now, how come we are still looking for that stupid black box?

      Because noone has volunteered yet to don an asbestos suit and walk into the raging fires to retrieve a small box.

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    3. Re:What's up with this black box? by luugi · · Score: 1

      They could wait for the plane to land safely before erasing the data. In addition, there's no need need to send all the information that's in the black box.

      --
      Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought.
    4. Re:What's up with this black box? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that would result in a flood of data that would be useless 99.99999% of the time. It would also cost a ton, and that is money that can be better spent elsewhere.

      Sounds like a description of the sum total of Internet bulletin-board traffic.

  346. +1, Funny! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1, Funny cuz baby Osama said so.

  347. Re:*Leap* by dosun88888 · · Score: 0, Troll

    1) Those moderates weren't really moderate in the first place. I say: fuck them and we can kill them too. I think that it was made pretty clear that people are either for or against the US. Moderate = Terrorist.

    2) Innocent in what way? Innocent in that they are still living over there on the moon since they aren't lucky enough to get to come here and try their hand at killing Americans? They fight for a morality that is defined as evil by the principles that this country has been founded on.

    3) The cycle of violence comment is out of place on this planet. Sometimes people will try to take you out no matter what you do save surrender to their oppression. This is one of those times. We can either retaliate and take out as many of them as we can, or just wait around for more from them. Sure it will happen throughout history and the future, but when you allow it to happen your nation dies.

    Some people think that American ideals (not beating women for absurd reasons, being allowed to fly a kite, getting an education, not living on the moon, not being forced to follow some silly religion - and they are ALL silly including christianity, and being led by someone that we elected ourselves) are worth fighting for and preserving.

    Some people don't care much, but all the Birkenstock wearing tree huggers that love to post on slashdot and spout opinions regarding US inaction when it comes to defending itself would not have been able to construct their eloquent but ridiculous arguments - having the vocabulary of an 11 year old, given that a 6th grade education is all that Allah wants you to have.

    When you have termites in your house - even just a few, you eradicate them to avoid them taking everything over and your house falling down. That's the current situation.

    Some people choose to fight for factions that are no better than hordes of insects.

    Good day.

    ~D

  348. bug? by CodeJudge · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe this crash is a bug: there *were* 255 people on the plane...

    const unsigned char NOT_A_PLANE = 0xff;

    ...

    if (pcount == NOT_A_PLANE) {
    // something horrible
    }

    Yeah, right. Glad I don't write avionic software.

  349. Feds contemplating shutting down air space again by cvanaver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This [salon.com]article is saying that GW is now meeting with his advisors about whether or not there is enough of a chance of this being a terrorist attack that it warrants shutting down US airspace again. At this time, they have made no decision on the matter.

    My personal thought on the matter is that the only way we are going to know if this was a terrorist attack is:
    A) Somebody claims responisbility (not too likely)
    B) Another plane goes down
    C) The NTSB comes back (after a couple of weeks) and says it was a bomb

    It seems to me that the government is either just going to have to wait and see if it happens again before they make that decision OR, they could shut everything down and start searching engines for bombs, but, in light of the fact that there is no evidence that this is terrorist-related, isn't shutting it all down giving in to terrorism?

  350. Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree. I have a freaking Athlon 1Ghz with 768MB PC133 RAM and lots of these news sites take shitloads of time to load on my system. Too much crap! Tragedy was bad, but the site was actually good that day.

    1. Re:Agreed by funky+womble · · Score: 1

      That's what Opera's "user mode" is for. (3rd icon along next to the address bar).

  351. Space Shuttle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was the Space Shuttle that crashed!!! If terrorists can infiltrate NASA then none of us are safe!

  352. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somehow, I don't think mrogers has spent very much time in the company of history books. Call it a hunch.

  353. Ok, this is wierd - too freaky by PeterMiller · · Score: 1

    http://firehouse.com/news/2001/10/25_FHkiss.html

    Check it yourself if you don't believe.

    "FDNY firefighter Michael Moran touched more people than he could know with his words to Osama bin Laden at last weekend's benefit Concert for New York.

    He summed it up for everybody when he spoke his message to bin Laden: "Kiss my royal Irish ass!"

    Moran's words drew wild applause from the crowd, and have continued to draw attention from others as the media spreads his story.

    The firefighter said he was sitting in the audience at Madison Square Garden,shortly before his turn to go up on stage to introduce a band. While he waited, he kept thinking about how much he wanted to say something for those that he lost in the September 11 attacks: his brother Battalion Chief John Moran, 12 firefighters from his own Ladder 3 and Battalion 6, and about 20 players from the fire department's football team.

    He said his now famous quote comes from an old expression used in his neighborhood of Rockaway, Queens, which he hasn't spoken in a very long time. But the phrase popped into his head Saturday, when the time was right."

    There is audio too.

    1. Re:Ok, this is wierd - too freaky by Legion303 · · Score: 1
      Yes, because Osama bin Laden has nothing better to do with his time than take on a double-dog dare.

      -Legion

  354. We dont know! by goodtim · · Score: 3, Informative

    it would be very irresponsable for us to jump to any conclusions. So nobody should be saying that it was, or was not, a terrioist attack.

    Its true that planes do crash, and it is possible that this is a conicidence. But given the recent events, it would be just plain dumb to not take into consideration terriosm.

    The AirBus A300 is a very reliable aircraft, and has been in use for 30 years.

    We need to take the time to look at the facts, once the smoke clears.

    --
    "Flee at once, all is discovered."
    1. Re:We dont know! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      The AirBus A300 is a very reliable aircraft, and has been in use for 30 years.

      And boy is it tired!

  355. Airdrops by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

    Kinda hard to do much more when the Taliban are SHOOTING at the airdrop planes, and confiscating (where they can) what little there is to feed soldiers...
    There is very little we can do while we are at war and the Taliban (who does NOT care about the Afghani people) is still in control.

    Oh yeah - The Taliban make shit up (counting military deaths as civilian, denying damage, etc.), but you would believe them over the US I suppose.

    We do need to bomb the crap out of them, and send in ground troops to clean up what's left. If we don't, these terrorists will just keep at it forever, killing innocent people everywhere.

    Oh yeah, they want to kill YOU too, not just our government, because of what you represent. They don't care what you actually believe.

    1. Re:Airdrops by snol · · Score: 1

      When did I assert any Taliban statistics as being better than US ones?

      And who's this "they"? That's the part I'm always confused about.

    2. Re:Airdrops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S. has provided 80% of the relief aid sent to Afgahnistan in the last 3 years. We have saved countless lives there, which is more than can be said of ANY Arab or Muslim leader. These Arab fucks would rather buy a military to fight each other than feed their own people. We do the right thing, and try to help, and we get blamed for not feeding every last one while we get shot at.

      Lets get objective: What if we quit all aid, quit buying any oil and quit trying to stabilize the region? Within 2 years Saddam would have killed 50 million with mustard gas and set up a huge country spanning the middle east. Within 10 years the whole area would have eaten all the food and the other 900 million would be dead. Is that what you want?

      Fuck you.

    3. Re:Airdrops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The U.S. has provided 80% of the relief aid sent to Afgahnistan in the last 3 years"

      And all while funding the taliban too! Left hand- right hand- packet filter between them.

  356. Re:Newssites quickly went to light - Dow-Jones fas by mrogers · · Score: 1
    Notice that this time the newssites was _very_ quick on going to a light version of their pages.

    Perhaps they've set their servers up to switch over to light content automatically during traffic spikes (wouldn't be very hard to do).

  357. Re:Better Link by PeterMiller · · Score: 1

    http://www.nydailynews.com/2001-10-22/News_and_Vie ws/City_Beat/a-129389.asp

  358. a badly timed accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    a badly timed accident

    As opposed to?

    1. Re:a badly timed accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah. That makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

  359. Cause by unformed · · Score: 2

    well since an engine fell a little while before. I'd assume the cause would be lack of an engine.

    That'll do it, y'know.

    1. Re:Cause by elvum · · Score: 1

      The A300, like practically all passenger aeroplanes, can survive the loss of an engine in flight.

    2. Re:Cause by Nater · · Score: 2

      There are rumors that a wing was on fire. Even without an engine, most planes would be hard pressed to survive with a burning wing.

      --

      I like to play children's songs in minor keys.
      "We're all sons of bitches now." --J. Robert Oppenheimer

  360. crazy moderation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -2 troll, -1 flamebait, +1 insightful, -1 overrated

    wtf? does somebody not know the definition of `troll`?

  361. Re:*Leap* by GregWebb · · Score: 2

    Which motivates them more, though? Poverty or death?

    Say 'Rich Americans are keeping you poor' and some will undoubtedly be motivated to kill Americans.

    Say 'Rich Americans are killing your family and friends' and I'd bet rather more will want to kill Americans.

    I'm not sure _what_ I'd have done, but I can see an awful lot of negative consequences to what we've done so far.

    --

    Greg

    (Inside a nuclear plant)
    Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!

  362. Re:thats the thing.. by arkanes · · Score: 1

    Airliners can often/usually survive the loss of an engine - but obviously, the loss of an engine during take-off is much worse. There's also a huge difference between an engine shutting down for whatever reason and an engine exploding and falling off - the second will cause all sorts of damage to the control surfaces, wing, etc.

  363. Rampant speculation is a good thing by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Soo... how come no one's talking about Stingers yet? Is everyone taking those 5-point don't-jump-to-conclusions posts seriously? Gimme a break, those are karma whores, through and through. Speculation is where the fun is.

    Here's something to think about, even if it turns out to be completely unrelated to what happened today: the resistance against the Soviets had shoulder-launched SAMs. They were trained how to use them, and used them effectively.

    Commercial aircraft take off on very predictable routes. It should be pretty easy to find an optimum firing position within a few miles of an airport, and park your car. You can study the pattern for weeks if you like. Then a plane goes right over your, you open the trunk, take out your Stinger, and shoot the slow-moving low-altitude plane (with nice hot engines at full takeoff power) in the back.

    Total security checkpoints you had to go through: zero, except when you smuggled the US-made SAM back into the country. (Or maybe you can even make your own right here -- the Sidewinder budget in the 50s was supposedly really low, and stuff that was cheap in the 50s is nearly free today). And you can do the shooting so fast, there might not even be any witnesses.

    Defending against that sort of thing is going to be tricky.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Troll

      Salon Premium has this article (for which I pay $30 / year) all about the threat of portable SAMs... Hand-held terror

      Shoulder-launched missiles are cheap, portable and deadly against lumbering commercial jets -- and terrorists in the U.S. may already have them.

      By Paul J. Caffera

      Nov. 5, 2001 | American Airlines Flight 970 was supposed to be routine, a two-hour hop from Managua, Nicaragua, to Miami International Airport. The only thing different about the scheduled flight leaving from Augusto Cesar Sandino International Airport on March 31, 1993, was that it was carrying senior-level Nicaraguan diplomats. Just before the plane was to take off, airport authorities received an anonymous telephone call threatening to shoot down the Boeing 727 with a shoulder-launched missile.

      The plane was kept on the ground until security crews could sweep the area by foot and helicopter for any suspicious activity. The authorities had plenty of reason for concern -- the caller had said the plane would be shot down with a "Redeye" missile. Redeyes, the first American-made, shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles, had been captured by the Russians at the end of the Vietnam War and subsequently shipped to the Cubans, who then funneled them to Nicaragua's communist Sandinista regime.

      In the end, the flight took off without incident, but the incident unnerved airport authorities and American Airlines, who realized that they were virtually powerless against the invisible threat. It also showed how close to home the threat of shoulder-launched missile attacks against passenger jets has come.

      In the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, aviation experts warn that shoulder-launched antiaircraft missiles could be used against American passenger jets in the future. Terrorist organizations like Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network are already believed to own such missiles, and some say it will only be a matter of time before they filter into the U.S. -- if they haven't already.

      So-called Man-Portable Air Defense Systems, or MANPADS, are capable of knocking a jet out of the sky from as far as five miles away and at an altitude of up to 13,000 feet in as little as 13 seconds. Those aboard often have no warning before the missile explodes as it slams into an engine, air-conditioning unit or other heat-producing device on the aircraft.

      In addition to American-made Stingers -- currently in the news because hundreds were supplied by the U.S. to the mujahedin fighters in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion in 1979 -- there are also Russian versions of the technology, including the Strela and IGLA series missiles. Highly accurate, easy to use and conceal, they are readily available on the black market around the world.

      According to a 1997 CIA report, shoulder-launched missiles were used 27 times against civilian aircraft in the last 19 years, resulting in 400 casualties. A 1994 State Department report offers a slightly higher figure -- 536 fatalities of passengers and crew as a result of 25 civilian aircraft incidents involving MANPAD missile attacks. A Department of Defense report released in 2000 goes a step farther, stating that "one of the leading causes of loss of life in commercial aviation worldwide has been from MANPADS attacks, with over 30 aircraft lost."

      Most of the incidents have been concentrated in Africa and the former republics of the Soviet Union, but there have also been attacks in Near East Asia and Central America.

      The prospect of a domestic antiaircraft missile attack has captivated American minds for several years now. Speculation that a Stinger was behind the explosion that downed TWA Flight 800 was so great that the Pentagon even launched several of the missiles off the coast of Florida during the National Transportation Safety Board's investigation of the crash in order to disprove those theories.

      The threat to commercial aviation first emerged in 1973, when Italian police arrested five Palestinian terrorists armed with antiaircraft missiles as they waited to shoot down an El-Al plane in Rome. But the first actual launching of a MANPAD missile at a commercial aircraft came in November, 1975, in the skies above Angola, according to a report published by the Pentagon's Joint Technical Coordinating Group on Aircraft Survivability.

      Among the most widely publicized incidents involving commercial aircraft were the downings of two Rhodesian Airlines flights in 1978 and 1979 over what is now Zimbabwe, using Russian SA-7 missiles. The attacks resulted in the deaths of at least 111 passengers and crew.

      In 1993, according to the State Department, a TU-154 aircraft in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia carrying 100 passengers, including a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, made a crash landing at the airport in Sukhumi after being struck in midair by a heat-seeking MANPADS missile. Only 26 of the passengers were able to escape before the plane exploded into flames on the runway, killing everyone left on board.

      In the decades since the missiles first emerged, various government agencies have become increasingly alarmed by the threat they pose.

      Gary Stubblefield, who heads the security firm Vantage Security and has testified before Congress about the threat of terrorism, describes the shoulder-fired missiles as "aviation's dirty little secret."

      In April, Air Force Gen. Charles T. Robertson Jr., the commander in charge of the military's "heavy lift" services, responsible for transporting troops and weaponry to hotspots around the world, told a Senate subcommittee that MANPADS "are the most serious threat to our large and slow-flying air mobility aircraft. These systems are lethal, affordable, easy to use, and difficult to track and counter."

      Robertson has good reason for worry. Despite the fact that some military planes carry sophisticated sensors to detect a MANPADS attack, and can deploy countermeasures to help defend against them, 12 of the 29 aircraft lost during the Gulf War were lost to MANPADS attacks, a recent RAND Institute study noted. Civilian aircraft are virtually defenseless in the face of an antiaircraft missile attack.

      Although loath to discuss this threat publicly, officials in a variety of federal agencies have been aware of the danger for decades.

      "Probably my greatest concern, every day, is the threat posed by the increasing global proliferation of man-portable air defense systems or MANPADS," Gen. Robertson told the Senate Armed Forces Committee last May. "We know that MANPADS are available and are likely in the hands of our terrorist adversaries."

      Both the State Department and the Congressional Research Service have drawn the same conclusion. In remarks before the International Rescue Committee in 1998, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright warned, "We are also pressing to conclude an agreement to control the export of shoulder-fired missiles, which too many terrorist groups, criminal syndicates and narco-trafficking organizations possess." In a 1999 report to Congress, the Congressional Research Service offered what is perhaps the most ominous missive yet -- that it is "highly likely" that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terror network have acquired MANPADS.

      If so, bin Laden and al-Qaida wouldn't be alone. At least 27 guerrilla and terrorist groups already have access to MANPADS, a recent report in Jane's Defense Review alleged. "It is logical to assume that bin Laden's al-Qaida network is in possession of additional MANPADS. If this is true, then al-Qaida represents the most significant threat to international civil aviation. Given bin Laden's specific threats against U.S. citizens, this threat is especially relevant with regard to U.S.-owned airlines," the Jane's report concluded.

      Others believe attacks on American carriers would most likely happen abroad. "Given the porosity of our borders, it is possible for such weapons to be smuggled into the U.S.," says William Hoehn Jr., a terrorism expert and professor of international affairs at the Georgia Institute of Technology. "But I would guess that the greater MANPADS danger to U.S. civil aviation is still from takeoffs and landings overseas."

      Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman Laura Brown acknowledges the weapons' viable threat to civil aviation, noting that the FAA has "clearly considered it." Brown says the FAA established a special task force on MANPADS. The interagency group -- which included representatives of the Department of Defense, the FAA and the intelligence community -- issued a classified report in 1998. Since that time, despite the government's concerns about antiaircraft missiles, no major changes have been made to either commercial aircraft design or in-flight operations to reduce the risk to travelers from a terrorist intent on shooting down a jet.

      Steps can be taken to make commercial aircraft less vulnerable to MANPADS. Gulfstream Aviation, a manufacturer of corporate jets, already offers an infrared countermeasures (IRCM) package as an option on its aircraft. Other measures that can be taken include attaching flare dispensers, installing "sacrificial" nozzles onto engines, locating infrared sources in less vulnerable areas of the aircraft, keeping flight control hydraulics away from likely hit locations, separating fuel systems from likely hit locations and hardening or shielding critical components around infrared sources.

      During a classified briefing in 1999, FAA official Raymond Schillinger described the government's research into identifying aircraft and airport vulnerabilities. A subsequent report released by the National Defense Industrial Association, a organization representing major defense corporations, described Schillinger's briefing as "a sobering presentation that described FAA studies regarding the MANPADS threat to commercial and transport aircraft."

      The report also noted that "the FAA's research and experimentation indicate a definite need to reduce vulnerability to MANPADS. The small size and portability of these missiles make them a lethal threat, especially in takeoff and landing corridors. Since there have been no confirmed incidents in the U.S., it is difficult to convince aircraft manufacturers and airline companies of the potential cost benefits to making the aircraft less susceptible and less vulnerable to MANPADS ..."

      How vulnerable does that leave America's airlines? "If terrorists [in the U.S.] had them, they could use them against buildings, airliners, etc.," warns Ivan Eland, a terrorism expert at the Cato Institute's Defense Policy Studies program. "There is very little the authorities could do about it."

      Dr. Todd Curtis, creator of AirSafe.com and a former Air Force officer and Boeing safety analyst, cautions that if there were a "dedicated person (who) wanted to shoot down a plane, there's nothing to stop them."

      A handful of major American airliners contacted multiple times during the reporting of this article -- including United, Northwest, Continental, Southwest and others -- refused comment when asked by this reporter about the vulnerability of commercial airliners to missile attacks. Numerous calls to the Airline Pilots Association went unreturned.

      Peter Foster, spokesman for the Air Canada Pilots Association, was less reserved. The danger of a MANPADS attack, he says, is "a constant threat to the air system, no doubt about it." Foster also stated that this danger "has not been considered in (commercial) aircraft design."

      MANPADS missile systems first gained widespread fame in the war between Afghanistan and the former Soviet Union. During that conflict, Soviet forces were running roughshod over Afghan defenders until the United States began supplying the anti-Soviet mujahedin with Stinger missiles. These MANPADS have been credited with turning the tide in that conflict against the Russians. Of the more than 900 stingers supplied to the mujahedin, many were never fired and remain in the arsenals of various groups in Afghanistan, despite a reported $55 million CIA effort to retrieve them.

      Many of the Stingers have fallen into the hands of the Taliban, which has long been secreting bin Laden. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers last month estimated that the Taliban possesses between 200 and 300 MANPADS.

      The security threat is not limited to regions where MANPADS are traded on the black market. They also represent a possible danger inside the U.S. After undertaking a comprehensive inspection of U.S. military storage depots, the General Accounting Office concluded that inventory control of military MANPADS stockpiles is so poor that hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of the weapons are unaccounted for.

      The GAO report raised another serious question about the safeguarding of America's Stinger stockpile. During the Gulf War, citizens of other countries were involved in the transport of U.S. Stingers on unguarded trucks. One Army official quoted by the GAO said that it would be "pure luck" if none of the missiles were lost. "Lax military oversight (has left) these missiles, which are in demand by terrorists and drug dealers, vulnerable to threat," the GAO concluded in its report.

      In addition to the U.S.-supplied Stingers in Afghanistan, newer and more sophisticated MANPADS are now being produced by former Warsaw Pact nations. All kinds of MANPADS have been flowing into the world's underground arms markets, where their black market cost is under $100,000 -- well within the reach of many deep-pocketed terrorist groups.

      In the mid-1990s, the U.S. became so concerned with the proliferation of MANPADS that it lobbied hard for the adoption of global export controls. As a result of the campaign, the U.S. and other countries adopted the Wassenaar Arrangement. Though it does not restrict the sale of MANPADS, Wassenaar does promote the "transparency" of arms sales as a way to curb inappropriate transfers of weapons.

      "We put the lid on the box, but before we did, a lot of them (MANPADS) got out of the box," a State Department official who asked not to be named concedes.

      But Wassenaar's greatest weakness lies in its inability to thwart black-market sales. "Many countries besides the U.S. have manufactured MANPADS, including Russia (from former Soviet designs), France, Germany, the U.K. and others," says Georgia Tech's Hoehn. "The former Soviet Union sold them widely to most of its client states, including Iran and Iraq -- as we did to our allies and to the Afghan rebels. I suspect they are almost as readily available on the 'secondary arms markets' as land mines, only more expensive," he says.

      Even if MANPADS are only sold to legitimate governments with the intention of their being used for self-defense, there is no guarantee that they will remain secure. In 1998, soldiers in the former Soviet republic of Georgia staged an uprising against the government of Eduard Shevardnadze and seized a cache of the shoulder-fired missiles. Whether by stealth or force of arms, if one is determined to obtain the missiles, they are available -- and they are small enough for a terrorist to easily smuggle into any country, including the United States.

      We've already had close calls.

      Federal law enforcement agencies have recently arrested a handful of people trying to smuggle MANPADS in and out of the United States in high-profile cases. Two of the most recent events occurred near Miami. In 1997, a group of smugglers from the former Soviet Union was arrested for attempting to ship a load of MANPADS into the U.S. from Bulgaria. When federal agents arrested the men in Florida, fortunately, the missiles were still in Bulgaria.

      More recently, on June 12, federal officials arrested two men in an arms deal sting operation -- an Egyptian and a Pakistani, both from New Jersey -- in a warehouse in West Palm Beach, Fla., on charges that they intended to export a wide variety of sophisticated weaponry, including American-made Stingers. The day of their arrest, the two suspects inspected a MANPADS missile at the warehouse and allegedly expressed interest in selling missiles to a foreign country. Later, an attorney for the Egyptian man at the center of the case, Diaa Mohsen, quoted in the Palm Beach Post, said the weapons would most likely have gone to the Republic of Congo or Pakistan.

      Although law enforcement officials have had success in stopping the import of MANPADS into the U.S., it may only be a matter of time before terrorists outsmart officials. A recent Rand Institute study suggested that if terrorists took their cue from drug smugglers along the porous U.S. border, the future could be grim.

      "Hundreds of thousands of people cross the U.S. border illegally every year, and individual drug shipments into the country are often as large as tens of tons," said the Rand study. "There is no reason to believe that a sufficiently motivated adversary could not duplicate the accomplishments of immigrants and drug smugglers. Indeed, a nation or terrorist group might hire smugglers for their expertise." In theory, they could smuggle weapons as easily as the tons of cocaine they bring in every year.

      When asked about the potential threat of smuggling identified in the Rand report, U.S. Customs Service spokesman Kevin Bell conceded: "More (drugs) get in than we can guess, and I would think that would be the same situation [with respect to MANPADS]."

      The White House, meanwhile, recently ushered a major package of security measures through Congress. But President Bush's own spokespeople admit that those measures will not eliminate the risk posed by MANPADS to air travelers. When asked by Salon what steps the White House is taking to reduce the threat of missile attacks, spokesman Ken Lisaius referred to comments made previously by press secretary Ari Fleischer. "Ari stated that the threat (to travelers) had been diminished, not that the situation is threat-free," Lisaius said.

      Dr. Robert Pfaltzgraff Jr., a professor of international security studies at Tufts University's Fletcher School, warns that the threat is the logical outcome of the global proliferation of MANPADS. "We should not discount the possibility that they are in the United States and may be used," he cautions.

      "We're in deep trouble."

      About the writer: Paul J. Caffera is a Rochester, N.Y., freelance writer.

    2. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by snake_dad · · Score: 1
      IHBT.. I know :) But still:

      Ofcourse not. In such a big city at least one person, if not hundreds, would have seen or heard the launch, and contacted the news organisations to collect some money for that scoop. Speculation may be fun, but we're not idiots here :-P

      Hmm... on second thought... this is slashdot...

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    3. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by interiot · · Score: 2
      except when you smuggled the US-made SAM back into the country

      If it were easy to smuggle these sorts of things in, presumably we'd have all sorts of things like suitcase nukes and other medium-size arms.


      And you can do the shooting so fast, there might not even be any witnesses.

      OTOH, if there are any witnesses at all, it's not like they're not going to notice, or write it off as something possibly legitimate. It would be a *very* memorable event.

      I'm rather uninformed though. It may or may not also be possible to detect such an attack from a distance away, either visually or via radar.

    4. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by Paul+Doom · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wasn't there an episode of Miami Vice where some unsavory group was going to take out a Concorde with a Stinger?

      --
      "Life is life." --Laibach
    5. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by jack+deadmeat · · Score: 1

      Firing off a Stinger would definitley attract some attention. Even in New York people would notice an object going trans-sonic at 9am.

    6. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      If it were easy to smuggle these sorts of things in, presumably we'd have all sorts of things like suitcase nukes and other medium-size arms.

      Nukes are rarer and more expensive than Stingers, so there's less traffic in those. And you probably have to be especially careful shielding them ... if my tax dollars aren't paying someone to be on the lookout for unexplained extra neutrons, then I want my money back.

      Portable SAMs, on the other hand, shouldn't be too hard to smuggle, provided you pack it inside .. oh, I don't know .. maybe a few TONS of marijuana or cocaine. That sort of shipment seems to be pretty easy to get through.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    7. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This post should be removed. Slashdot should not get free content written by others. Support salon, dont steal from it.

    8. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by joshwa · · Score: 2

      First, judging from the crash site location, the missle could have been launched from a boat or another concealed location.

      Also, IIRC from reading enough Tom Clancy and Dale Brown, Stingers and other MANPADS are virtually invisible-- no smoke trail, and can only be detected by their IR signature. Add atmospheric conditions (e.g. a low sun like today's) and it's perfectly plausible that a Stinger launch could occur undetected.

    9. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by babbage · · Score: 1

      Thank you, Pierre Salinger, but I think you've already tried this theory... :)

    10. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by joshwa · · Score: 2

      see this link for a picture explaining what I mean.

    11. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Information wants to be free!

    12. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by John_Booty · · Score: 2

      "OTOH, if there are any witnesses at all, it's not like they're not going to notice, or write it off as something possibly legitimate. It would be a *very* memorable event."

      i dunno. if you did it from a roof or something, who would see, really? someone could be randomly gazing out of the window and staring at the roof you're on, but what are the odds of that? low i'd say, due to the amount of roof-gazing i do every day (zero)

      also New York is not all crowded bustling city streets. of course someone is gonna notice you firing a SAM from the middle of Wall Street. but New York is suburbs too, like Long Island, etc... so then you spend five minutes firing from someone's backyard after the entire neighborhood has headed off to work/school for the day... it would only take a few minutes ya know, and planes fly right over residential areas every day.

      and obviously customs is gonna notice a SAM in your luggage as it goes through the Xray machine... but you could smuggle one in piece by piece, spread out over multiple people and mutiple trips in the country. or do a trojan horse thing... a shipment of 100 varied lawn mower parts, with a few Stinger components thrown in there. who would notice?

      --

      OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
    13. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by junkgrep · · Score: 2, Offtopic

      Even if your all for Slashdot poster's rights of free speech, copy-pasting an article from a great publication desperate to financially support itself is at the least, in very poor taste.

      Information wants to be free.... but online magazines would like it if they could stay in bussiness, and I'd like it too.

    14. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      It's actually frighteningly trivial to sneak something like this into the U.S., especially if can get it in via either ship or ground. U.S. customs simply cannot stop and search every single cargo ship bringing in thousands of crates of stuff per day, nor can it search every truck that enters the U.S. from Canada or Mexico. It's estimated that if they did, even with the ridiculous assumption that each inspection would only take minute, our shipping economy would grind to a halt.

      In fact, because of the special security loopholes given to larger shipping corporations, it would be trivially easy to simply piggyback something in with their goods. For instance, you might hide the Stinger in the trunk of a German-made car being shipped over here. No one checks these cars. All you'd have to have is someone on the inside at the plant in Germany, and someone on the inside at the holding lot in America.

    15. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by wytcld · · Score: 2

      Between Kennedy Airport and the crash site lies Gateway National Recreation Area, providing ample opportunities for New York's Muslim Arab community to enjoy such recreational activities as birding, boating and fishing. Brooklyn, just next door to Queens, has the largest concentration of Arabs in the US - the second-largest after Detroit. One Brooklyn high-schooler, of an Egyptian immigrant family, proudly told his class a week before 9/11, "See those towers. In a week they won't be there." Authorities appear to believe this a coincidence, as they let the boy's father return to Egypt after questioning.

      --
      "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
    16. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly does that statement too often repeated statement justify? "Information wants to be free". So what?

    17. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by TheSync · · Score: 2

      If it were easy to smuggle these sorts of things in, presumably we'd have all sorts of things like suitcase nukes and other medium-size arms.

      Smuggling nuclear weapons is much more difficult because of the radiation properties of highly enriched uranium, especially its gamma ray signature.

      A few years ago, a friend of mine was moving radioactive samples around the Washington, DC, metro area for a University lab. He got pulled over by a non-descript white van, and the driver asked him a LOT of questions. After a few calls, they found out he was legit, and let him go. I've been told that you can actually detect nuclear weapons from outside of a ship.

      OTOH, any explosive can be detected with a timed neutron detector, and there are versions that can sense the return of "slowed" neutrons over a few feet used to sense the explosive in land mines, or the "sniff" variety found in airports. However the range on explosive detection is much lower, certainly if tons of marijuana and cocaine make it into the US every year, a small missle or two could as well.

    18. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, last time I ever let you borrow my books. Go buy your own damned copy.

    19. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speculation is where the fun is.
      I think you might have some personal issues to deal with if you consider this type of speculation fun.

    20. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you cant see the difference between giving a book (a physical one time object) and widely broadcasting content to a pull medium accessable by anyone, then well... you know. you'r wrong and such.

    21. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by nexthec · · Score: 1

      wow, score 2, but no actual information contained in the post, just what could be randomly spewed numbers....got any refrences....electronic or paper even? especially for the quote of the kid?

    22. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      and obviously customs is gonna notice a SAM in your luggage as it goes through the Xray machine... but you could smuggle one in piece by piece, spread out over multiple people and mutiple trips in the country. or do a trojan horse thing... a shipment of 100 varied lawn mower parts, with a few Stinger components thrown in there. who would notice?

      Everyone seems to assume that terrorists will travel by air. What about the sea? How hard/easy is it to sail from one country to another without running into any kind of authority?

      Is it possable that they could have smuggeled stuff into the country this way? Or is it just as hard as trying to smuggle stuff in via airliners?
      I suspect that it would be easier via the sea. But I'm no expert at all on this. Anyone else know?

    23. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by jafac · · Score: 2

      That photo is from the compressed gas burst of the launch itself - it pushes the missile out and up into the air. Only when the missile is about 25' away from the launcher does the rocket motor ignite.

      In general - solid propellant rockets leave copious smoke trails compared to liquid-fueled rockets. I seriously doubt that the stinger is liquid fueled.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    24. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Speculation: The Airforce for whatever reason, shot the plane down.

      Oh, wait, no, i forgot, the airforce can't aim.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    25. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by snake_dad · · Score: 2

      Wrong, lots of smoke. There is a movie here that shows an aircraft being hit. Now tell me if I'm just imagining that smoketrail :-)

      They *are* fast, and certainly undetectable before launch. They could be used against airliners, but my point was that someone would have noticed, and would have called CNN by now.

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    26. Re:Rampant speculation is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the schoolboy story, try here

  364. Re:What does it prove? by joss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I really don't understand why this is marked as flamebait. It seems like a genuine post to me, not even particuarly unreasonable.

    What most anti-war protestors object to is killing a bunch of people who had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks. For instance, it's estimated that 100,000-1,000,000 people will starve as a result of US/UK bombing of Afghanistan. This is not the estimate of those who will starve, it is the difference between the numbers who would have died anyway, and the number who will die now. The assassination of the leaders of those responsible would be just fine with lot's of people who object to the "war" (myself included). Unfortunately this is not very easy to accomplish.

    Just a couple of quick questions for you here: how many of the terrorists were Afghans ?
    where did the majority of the terrorists come from ?
    which country provides most the funding for AlQueada ?

    (hint: 0,Saudi-12/18,Saudi)
    So, given the above, how many dead civilian Afghanis would be acceptable in your opinion ? Seriously, I'm curious, is it

    a) "all of them",
    b) 10,000,000-1,000,000
    c) 1,000,000-100,000
    d) 100,000-10,000
    e) 10,000-1,000
    f) 1-1000
    g) none

    Personally, I would opt for (e),(f) or maybe even (d) *if* I was convinced this would prevent another Sept 11 or worse.

    And I guess the related question is: for what objectives are you prepare to kill that number of people ?
    Would that be acceptable in order to also achieve death of Osama Bin Laden, or OBL + most of Al-Queada, or OBL+AlQueada+Taliban, or what ?

    > we need to stop being so... law abiding? moral?

    What I'm curious about is where you got the impression that the US was doing those things anyway ? What laws do you think the IS abiding by ? On the moral front, I agree with right to defend oneself, I'm just not convinced that this is what's going on here. Are you starting to feel safer now that some Afghans have been blown up too ? Do you believe this reduces the threat of future terrorist attacks ?

    This isn't meant to be rehetorical. I'm just puzzled. I'll answer hawksish questions in response if mine are answered.

    --
    http://rareformnewmedia.com/
  365. Shirley Jackson, man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Lottery kicks ass!

  366. Accident or Bomb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    While the timing of the crash (just after takeoff) does seem to indicate some kind of mechanical failure this might not be the case. If a bomb was hooked to an altimiter (altimeters work off air pressure) set to explode at a certain altitude and it was placed within a pressurized cargo hold the pressurizationg of the hold might have detonated it. An explosion in a cargo hold next to a fuel line might have caused the line to light causing the burning engine that was reported. Alternatively in light of the footage of the concourd with an engine on fire the blowing out of the airbus's engine may have been an act of sabotage. \

    Steve

  367. Slant-Six Coverage by zpengo · · Score: 1, Troll

    We've got some reliable linkage online here. Check comments there for further updates.

    --


    Got Rhinos?
  368. WHY IS THIS FLAMEBAIT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just curious...

  369. Re:Radiohead: disaster music (tangentially ontopic by MeerCat · · Score: 1
    and that comes after the Airbag lyrics that preceded the Princess Diana crash

    In a fast german car I'm amazed that I survived
    An airbag saved my life

    ... that one freaked me out for a while ... ;^) - but maybe we should stop before
    2 jumps in one week I bet you think you're pretty clever don't you boy


    T
    --
    I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. - George Best
  370. Two more questions: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. What happened to the Sept. 11 cockpit crew conversations with air traffic control?

    2. Where was military surveillance of U.S. air space on Sept. 11?

  371. This is the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    667th comment. So don't blame the devil.

  372. Re:Don't think, don't react. by shani · · Score: 1

    Live you life as you always have. Go to work, raise your kids, spend your money, and be happy until given a legitimate reason not to be.

    No, we haven't been programmed to be happy little consumers, have we?

  373. A300 - Software "Fly by Wire" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The A300 was the first (and only?) passenger aircraft which is entirely under software control. This is know as "fly by wire", where mechanical controls have all been replaced by a data bus, sensors, and actuators. One possible problem is that if software developers didn't anticipate every failure mode, an unexpected loss of critical sensors could cause the control software to become confused, causing a further spiraling loss of control. Investigating failure in an A300 can not discount the contribution of software failure.

  374. Re:*Leap* by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

    Good point. Let's feed the terrorists and send them weapons. That will make them like us. Oh wait, we already did that and...

  375. Not again.. by Milkyman · · Score: 1

    I live in new york.. can the planes go drop somewhere else for once

  376. NYC plane crash -- cnn.com down by SandmanCL · · Score: 1

    Just saw a press release about the News search feature on Alltheweb. Very handy, now that cnn.com is down (at least it has been for me during the better part of this day...)
    Check out this news search for 'queens plane crash'. Hit #1 was updated 27 minutes ago. A tragic day with another tragic event, but a nice discovery that I wanted to share...

    Sandman

  377. Re:Don't think, don't react. by John+Miles · · Score: 2

    No, we haven't been programmed to be happy little consumers, have we?

    Beats the shit out of the alternative programming choices out there.

    --
    Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
  378. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I pray to Allah that you become president one day so we can goatsecx you without any concerns or fears of retaliation. Please raise your children to be as passive as you are. It will only make it easier for us to win.

    -Taliban

  379. Would SAMs necessary? by FirstNoel · · Score: 1

    Just wondering, is a SAM really necessary to bring down a taking-off A-300? Or could you do the same with a high powered rifle on a take-off situation. (you'd have to be a damn good aim)

    Sean D.

    --
    "Hmm. I am to metaphor cheese as metaphor cheese is to transitive verb crackers!"
    1. Re:Would SAMs necessary? by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      It does depend on where you do it from- if it's still low enough to the ground you can compensate somewhat for how fast its moving. Someone in a blacked out minivan stopped outside the tollbooth on I-78 could probably have a good chance for things coming out of Newark airport, and then get away and ditch the car before witnesses caught on. It really depends on whether one can shoot the wing or if they have to get an engine. A normal sniper rifle probably couldn't do it, but the really nasty ones we gave the mujahadeen back in the 80s, if they're still in working condition, probably could.

      This is all pretty scary to think about, because just in the act of thinking about it you realize how many different new crazy things anyone with even a dull brain could think up to do, and how it would be impossible to protect against them all. The world is moving into an era when we have to trust our lives to the judgement of those with the WORST judgement, and the HIGHEST propensity for violence. If they want to do it, and aren't afraid to get caught or die, it's not likely that we can stop them before the fact (no deterent effect either).

    2. Re:Would SAMs necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this could do the job

    3. Re:Would SAMs necessary? by Andrewkov · · Score: 2
      If they want to do it, and aren't afraid to get caught or die, it's not likely that we can stop them before the fact

      That is the key .. All our anti-terrorist measures prior to 9/11 assumed that the terrorists don't want to die. We can't assume that any more.

  380. Terrorist or Accident? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I (in a wierd way) almost hope it is terrorist related. If it is, world opinion will almost strenghten for the fight against terrorism. Nations that were cold toward each other will become closer. People with moderate/extreme views will be ostrasised(spelling). If not, ObL will just claim his cause is just, because Allah also dropped a plane on NY.

    Our thoughts go to those in NY

  381. Re:*Newsflash* by Lonath · · Score: 1

    I heard that they threatened to fill our restaurants and stores with fatty foods and to start selling little sticks of flammable plant products that they will use to poison us with choking gas.

    Now I hear about all of these people dying of heart attacks and cancer, and it must be those damn terrorists again!

  382. Re:Don't think, don't react. by JohnDenver · · Score: 1

    Live you life as you always have. Go to work, raise your kids, spend your money, and be happy until given a legitimate reason not to be.

    No, we haven't been programmed to be happy little consumers, have we?


    Why do you assume that by coming to this conclusion you have to be a brainwashed product of the media? Is it far fetched that one might come to this conclusion on thier own after weighing against many alternatives?

    Can't people go to work, raise kids, spend money, and be happy in addition to being generous with thier time and money for those less fortunate or for a legitimate cause?

    --
    "Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
  383. Shoulder-launched missile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was probably the results of a shoulder-launched missile. A plane right after takeoff would be most vulnerable to this type of attack, and the type of breakup reported is consistent. My guess is they used and old Stinger missile that was given to them by the old Reagan or Bush administration.

    1. Re:Shoulder-launched missile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could have been a meteor that hit the engine during takeoff. That would explain some of the strange details.

    2. Re:Shoulder-launched missile by variable26 · · Score: 1

      Specifications
      Missile Type: 2 stage, low altitude
      Length: (missile) 1.52 m
      Diameter: (missile) 0.070 m
      Wing span: 0.091 m
      Weight: (missile (at launch)) 10.1 kg
      (launcher (plus missile)) 13.3 kg
      (launcher (complete)) 15.7 kg
      (battery coolant unit) 0.4 kg
      (beltpack IFF system (including connecting lead)) 2.6 kg
      (grip-stock) 2 kg
      Propulsion: solid fuel ejector and dual-thrust boost/sustainer rocket motors
      Guidance: FIM-92A passive IR homing; FIM-92B/C passive IR/UV homing
      Warhead: 1 kg HE blast smooth-case fragmentation with time-delay contact fuze
      Max speed: M2.2
      Max range: 8,000 m
      Max effective range:
      (FIM-92A) greater than 4,000 m
      (FIM-92B/C) 4,800 m
      Min effective range: 200 m
      Max altitude:
      (FIM-92A) 3,500 m
      (FIM-92B/C) 3,800 m
      Min altitude: effectively ground level
      Launcher: man-portable single-round disposable with reusable grip-stock

  384. Coward by thex23 · · Score: 2
    Only a simple mind would want a simple, violent resolution to a complex problem. There won't be one, no matter what happens to Bin Laden. Chop off one head, see two more pop up. Long term, painful, and (often frustrating) humanitarian measures will eventually work - see Ireland.

    Several times in your Anonymous message, you indicate it is okay to kill innocents (future soldiers, entire cities) in pursuit of your own country's goals. You are unprincipled, arrogant, and cruel. Sound like anyone we know?

    Telling someone they should kill themselves because you find their speech annoying... it really points to how much diversity in opinion you are willing to tolerate, doesn't it?

    Reply with your name next time. Coward.

    1. Re:Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a simple mind would want a simple, violent resolution to a complex problem.

      Only an empty mind chooses an insult of that nature as the primary response to his/her opponent. (Not that being an empty mind is necessarily bad; some such as mrogers advocate empty minds as the path towards bliss).

      Interestingly, a true student of history would be aware that violent response of substantial escalation to a violent challenge is indeed the only response that is recognized by thugs. History is overflowing with examples of both transgressions and supporting illustrations of this principle.

      And why shouldn't it be? If I challenge you with a gun and the loss of your life, and you respond with food and presents/bribes, my way has prevailed. Only another gun challenges my force.

      There won't be one, no matter what happens to Bin Laden. Chop off one head, see two more pop up.

      History argues against your point. The examples cited to substantiate this incorrect view are not correct examples of extreme response. The British were neutered long ago and have been incapable of anything but incrimental response in Northern Ireland (plus, they had no moral foundation whatsoever, unlike the current U.S. situation).

      The Israelis, capable of extreme response, have been effectively neutered by U.S. and EU coertion.

      Technically, the only governments unafraid of absolute response are not democratic ones (consistent with the ethical decay and rationalization of western society). Interestingly, this will either change and the US will return to a forceful nation, or it too will not escape the pending downfall that all other neutered empires were unable to escape.

      Long term, painful, and (often frustrating) humanitarian measures will eventually work - see Ireland.

      No evidence in history whatsoever. Appeasement against a tyrant does not work. Ireland again is not a suitable example; the Irish did not attack Britain, they were occupied by it and have the moral foundation. Britain was the wrong-do'er and is slowly removing its position of occupation.

      Bin Laden and his peers are occupiers in a sense, attacking a foreign nation. Contrary to their rationalization, they are not challenged by the US, capitalism or any other order. Do not forget that Bin Laden is a "silver spoon" product of rich Saudi upbringing, not an oppressed peasant. He is the ultimate in relativist evil: one who gains emotional pleasure in the destruction of others. In this manner, he is a member of a very rare minority of humans who must be destroyed before too many innocents are lost. (Mrogers, who secretly wishes to be consumed by such a destroyer, amuses in that he cannot see that OBL is in the same order as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Napoleon, etc.)

      Several times in your Anonymous message, you indicate it is okay to kill innocents (future soldiers, entire cities) in pursuit of your own country's goals.

      It is unfortunate that you are unable to recognize that this decision is not made in a vacuum; e.g. "kill innocents or not."

      The problem we have here is one which relativists cannot comprehend by definition: there is no innocence by the Afghani people and the American Relativist. Passive support of a cause in thought alone still constitues support. The Afghani people *have* supported the Taliban, and the Taliban support Bin Laden and terrorism. They will pay the price for their decision, as should you.

      Read "Hitler's Willing Executioners" should you be puzzled with this sentence. Tacit support, looking the other way, etc. gives rise to tyranny, and tyranny will be opposed by people like us.

      You are unprincipled, arrogant, and cruel.

      Pursing liberty, recognizing choice has consequence and speaking out against thought that is consistent with Bin Laden's relativism is more principled than you are able to comprehend. Per arrogant and cruel, only to those that advocate self-death and that of others they have no right to claim.

      Telling someone they should kill themselves because you find their speech annoying...

      To shorten the path to your self-quest? Your cause is historically one that leads only to death. Why drag others unnecessarily to it? Why waste more time of ours or yours?

      it really points to how much diversity in opinion you are willing to tolerate, doesn't it?

      "Tolerating diversity of opinion" sounds nice, doesn't it. Unfortunately its speaker seeks separation from action and consequence. I remind you that your opinion, while able to be held, does indeed have a consequence, and that is what annoys you.

      Reply with your name next time. Coward.

      And why does this bother you? Because you cannot target people like myself with harassment? Your form of consequence is to target those who differ with threats, phone calls, mail bombs, etc. We've dealt with your type too frequently before. You'll just have to stew and be upset that you cannot punish one who disagrees with you (while you argue for "freedom of speech" for your views).

      Indeed, the only true coward is one who believes your views.

      The day of the relativist is numbered.

    2. Re:Coward by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      Interesting thing: Bin Laden said in an interview before this all happened that he got the idea of bombing civilian targets from seeing how effective Hiroshima and Nagasaki were. In short, his reasoning is that to win a war, the fastest way is to cause the civilian base of the enemy so much pain that they their leaders won't be willing to continue and risk more of it.

      This puts us all in a bit of a pickle: If, as Bush claims, nothing justifies the killing of innocent people to achieve an end, then Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot be justified. But if they can, then I guess such acts of terrorism (attacking civilian targets to blackmail a goal) CAN potentially be justified, and its a matter of opinion if the cause is important enough (winning a war more conclusively than not vs. appeasing what you believe to be mortal outrages against your god).

      "Who's the moral relativist now?" we might ask the crazed righties...

  385. Re:*Leap* by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

    Let's use the same analogy with crime.

    Let's not put criminals in jail because it just creates more criminals. Let's stop the cycle of crime and jail.

    Makes good sense, right?
    The Taliban are not going to let us come in and arrest Osama and his cohorts (which just happen to be the Taliban itself.) We have no other choice if we want to deal with him and we HAVE to deal with him unless we are willing to roll over and let EVERY terrorist group have their way with us.

    I want my daughter to grow up in a world where she can feel reasonably safe from the likes of Osama. We MUST take him and all his associates out.

  386. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Funny how people assume the worst of us and the best of them.

    Funny how we do the same towards other people.

  387. A despicable PR stunt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I knew the Bushies would pull some stunt today to take attention away from the revelation that Gore won the election, but this is just sick! Shame on you Ari Fleischer! You people are despicable!

    1. Re:A despicable PR stunt! by Legion303 · · Score: 1
      I knew the Bushies would pull some stunt today to take attention away from the revelation that Gore won the election, but this is just sick! Shame on you Ari Fleischer! You people are despicable!

      I was a Gore backer, but I also know how to read. The AP's official testimony shows that Gore was about 2,000 votes behind in Florida.

      -Legion

  388. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And terrorists are much more effective when they get state support. The Taliban willingly harbored known terrorists . Smash the state(s) that support terrorists and the danger to America is greatly reduced. This war is as much scaring the shit out of Syria, Sudan, etc. into not supporting terrorists that wish to strike at the US as it is an attempt to get bin Laden.

  389. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    According to your reasoning, if someone comes into your house, kills your family, and eats your pizza, you should just sit there and hand them a beer lest you run the risk of pissing them off.

    Isn't this exactly what Americans expected out of the Vietnamese/Koreans/Iraqis/Afghans who "we" were "protecting" while our bombs killed everyone near them?

  390. Airbus... by swissmonkey · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Oh I see...

    Now Bush will try to bomb Airbus factories because they "bombed" NY...

  391. Re:*Leap* by rossz · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Which course will perpetuate a cycle of violence and be used to justify further attacks?

    What an incredibly naive statment. When a fanatic wants to kill you, talking to him to "end the cycle of violence" only gives him more opportunities to kill you. When Hitler tried to take over the world, did we try to stop the "cycle of violance" by talking to him? HELL NO! We responded with force. We killed the enemy. That's how you end the cycle of violence.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
  392. Airline disasters 1920-2000 by SpinyNorman · · Score: 2

    How about searching for "bomb" on this list:

    Airline disasters 1920-2000

    Now which seems the greater likelyhood to you - accident or terrorism? YOU do the math!

  393. News coverage by paqsys · · Score: 1

    This may be a little of topic, but please bear with me. I have been trying to get any news about the crash on all the major news websites. Thank goodness for Slashdot. All the other "news" organizations are swamped. One would think, in this age of the internet and the relatively cheap hardware out there, that the major news sites would be able to handle the traffic of a serious disaster. Remember 9/11? Did they learn nothing from the sudden influx of traffic? People want to know what is going on. These sites claim to be news leaders. Yet anytime there is a serious need or desire for news, the site goes down.

    Sorry I had to vent.

  394. News by zpengo · · Score: 1, Troll
    This may be a little of topic, but please bear with me. I have been trying to get any news about the crash on all the major news websites. Thank goodness for Slashdot. All the other "news" organizations are swamped. One would think, in this age of the internet and the relatively cheap hardware out there, that the major news sites would be able to handle the traffic of a serious disaster. Remember 9/11? Did they learn nothing from the sudden influx of traffic? People want to know what is going on. These sites claim to be news leaders. Yet anytime there is a serious need or desire for news, the site goes down.

    We've got your news coverage right here.

    --


    Got Rhinos?
  395. if this is an act of terrorism by AnimeFreak · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Then is this the worst they'll do? Now, I know blowing up planes or crashing them into buildings is quite horrific, yet I thought, if this is a terrorist attack, they'd go further? Not that I am striking fear into you guys, but maybe they would have done something like releasing Small Pox (that isn't an unlikely scenerio by the way).

    Also, do you think that they missed their target? Crashing into Queens is pretty bad, yet I don't think there was an intention to crash there and I beleive there was an intention to crash somewhere else.

    That is, if it is an act of terrorism.

    1. Re:if this is an act of terrorism by compugeek007 · · Score: 1

      Also - all terrosists that we are suspecting have beef with America(ns) Why attack a flight that is majority Dom Rep. citizens? Maybe this could be a cleverly disguised assination of some high powered Domincan Republic drug overlord / politican / leader / rebel?

      --
      Jesse Wolfe Sr. Manager Systems Integration
    2. Re:if this is an act of terrorism by bpowell423 · · Score: 1

      Terrorism doesn't have to hit a "big target". If this was terrorism, it was most likely sabotage, which would seem possible, given accounts of smoke trailing from the engine prior to the apparent explosion. Someone on the ground could have tampered with it to pretty much guarantee that it would fall out of the sky, but not know when or where. The other possible terrorism angle is a missle, like a stinger. It would seem likely that someone would have noticed this. I've actually heard an "eye-witness report" of someone who saw something sticking out of a truck. How's that for rumor material? Anyway, the point is that terrorism doesn't have to be precise or hit big targets, like it was on 9/11, in order to be effective.

  396. Heard on CNN... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The plane was carrying 246 passengers and 9 crew.

    The Dominican Republic claimed that 150 of the passengers on the flight were its citizens.

    Both statements were cautioned as 'preliminary'

  397. Re:*Leap* by FatRatBastard · · Score: 2

    Which takes us down a whole other path (and a whole other huge arguement). Just exactly what do we do. According to the Washington Post we've shown the Taliban evidence of bin Landen and his boys' involvement in the Cole bombings, as well as the African embassey bombings, yet they haven't turned him over. I'd guess it would be safe to say that they would take the same tact this time. So the few choices I see are keep asking "pretty please", try some sort of embargo and put political pressure on Afghanistan (but since no one in the international community except the likes Saudi and Pakistan have even recognized them as a governing body I seriously doubt that would work), or you take action to smoke the guy out.

    Of course, the orig statement from which I replied was the one equating bombing Afghanistan with airport security (or the lack there of), which is a bogus argument. Airport security and the actions in Afghanistan are orthogonal.

  398. =O_o= by Lethyos · · Score: 2

    an engine fell from the plane some distance from the fuselage.

    Uuhh... clear this up?

    --
    Why bother.
  399. Where do you get those figures ? by aepervius · · Score: 1

    I work in the airline industry and around here every bagage is at least screened using X-rays. If it doesn't get explosive it at least catch electronical device. And "opaque" bagage are set aside for torough checking so forget using a X-Ray stopping cover to hide anything.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Where do you get those figures ? by czardonic · · Score: 1

      I work in the airline industry and around here every bagage is at least screened using X-rays. If it doesn't get explosive it at least catch electronical device.

      You must not be high enough in the food chain to be trusted with the real facts. Or maybe it is the flight crews who are in the dark, because they are certainly not satisfied with the "checking." (Salon)

      From the article:

      "A small amount of Czech-made explosives, hidden inside a Toshiba radio, brought down the 300-ton aircraft and took the lives of 269 people, most of them Americans."

      How would your X-Ray machine help against this? Are you telling me that every electronic device in checked luggage is dismantled and verified to be secure? The ARE ways to screen baggage for explosives (mentioned in the article). However, they only employed in a small percentage of US airports, and not at all for domestic flights. The Feds and your airline industry won't even release actual figures, a sure sign that they know the public wouldn't like what it heard.

      --
      Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
    2. Re:Where do you get those figures ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes as of sept every electronic LOOKING item must be verified to function as designed or it is not tobe allowed thru the checkpoint. Be it on a belt or straped to your ass.

  400. Airworthiness Directive by notcarlos · · Score: 1

    For an airworthiness directive of this magnitude, Airbuses should have been grounded until they were fixed. Note the addition of this clause:

    (c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections Secs. 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.

    This means that the /only/ reason a faulty plane would be in the air is if it was on its way to be fixed. It wouldn't surprise me, however, that people would fly these things without being compliant; I'd expect that somebody's going to loose their FAA ratings.

    --
    io hymen hymnaee io
    io hymen hymnaee
    1. Re:Airworthiness Directive by cperciva · · Score: 2

      For an airworthiness directive of this magnitude, Airbuses should have been grounded until they were fixed.

      I'm no expert on how the FAA operates, but I assumed that the instruction "Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the electrical connector..." meant that the planes could still be operated for up to 18 months without the modifications being made. If not, what does that clause mean?

    2. Re:Airworthiness Directive by notcarlos · · Score: 1

      It means that they have 18 months or the planes are grounded perminantly. Airworthiness directives ground planes. Period.

      --
      io hymen hymnaee io
      io hymen hymnaee
  401. Sound like trolling. by aepervius · · Score: 1

    And by looking at the [negative] score of what you posted in the past, you are most likely doing that right now. Instead of trying to fuel hate fire, how about making well constructed opinion post ?

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  402. Re:You people are sick! by bpowell423 · · Score: 1

    This is obviously a tragic accident? I'm sorry, but I didn't think the investigation was over yet. Yes, hopefully this turns out to be some type of mechanical failure or something, but until then, statements like "this is obviously a tragic accident" are just as erroneous and speculative as "this was obviously taken down by a stinger missile". Even if the investigation concludes that it was an "accident", that's not completely satisfactory. A good sabotage would look like an accident.

  403. Two crash sites? by variable26 · · Score: 1

    Why were there two crash sites?

    CNN has pictures of two crash sites and they state one is from the plane and one site is the engines...

    "American Airlines Flight 587 crashed on takeoff in the New York City borough of Queens. Two hundred firefighters and 44 trucks were dispatched to the scene of what New York Mayor Giuliani says are two crash sites -- one of the plane and one of an engine."

    If you look at the engine's crash site it's not "crash site" but more of just where the engine landed. Did anyone see any overhead shots of the Queens area on the news? Are there two burning areas? Did the whole plane break-up before hitting the ground?

    http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/us/0111/newyork .c rash.gallery/12.jpg

    1. Re:Two crash sites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "v.heavy lump of metal hitting the ground v.quickly" == "crash"

  404. Not the same technology. by aepervius · · Score: 1

    The concorde accident was caused by a plane piece which damaged the tire and blew , which the subsequently damaged the tank. Furthermore the design and technology behind both plane are different, and have what , 30 years of difference in their design. They weren't even designed by the same team of ingenieur. Their only common point is probably that they aren't american plane.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  405. Re:JHC.... not again. by pa-guy · · Score: 0

    It's actually "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war"It's from Julius Casear, by that Shakespeare dude.

  406. Catastrophic bird strike caused crash? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Folks,

    While a lot of people a angling towards the idea of a terrorist action, I think there's one possibility that no one has yet discussed: mechanical failure caused by a catastrophic bird strike.

    Far-fetched? Not if you know something about the geography and ecology at JFK Airport and Jamaica Bay. To the west and south of JFK Airport is a very large marshy area that serves as a sanctuary for migratory birds (plus some native waterfowl). This means at this time of the year--when birds are migrating south for the winter--there will be millions of birds out in this sanctuary.

    What happens when you have flocks of birds rising by the thousands getting in the way of the flight path of an airliner taking off out into Jamaica Bay? My guess is that American Airlines Flight 857 may have flown in to a very large flock of birds just after take off, mean the plane's two GE CF6-80 engines may be ingested 40 or more birds per engine somewhere between 1 and 2 seconds. That many birds being ingested will seriously damage the front engine blades, and such a severe bird ingestion may be enough to cause a catastrophic fan section failure, which can spew out very sharp engine fan blades at supersonic speeds, possibly breaking through the engine nacelle and hitting the fuselage, wing flap control lines and wing fuel tanks, which explains the fire on the wings that eyewitnesses saw.

    Eyewitnesses said that the plane flew very low before the plane lost one of its engines and then crashed down at a sharp angle. This sounds consistent with the plane suffering a catastrophic bird strike.

    If anyone remembers, some years ago an E-3A Sentry AWACS plane crashed aftering taking off from Elmendorf AFB in Anchorage, AK after the engines failed due to a catastrophic bird ingestion problem. AA Flight 857 may have suffered a similar unfortunate fate. :-(

    1. Re:Catastrophic bird strike caused crash? by hether · · Score: 1

      Actually, I heard a pilot speaking with CNN news radio say that he thought it was entirely possible that a large bird, like a pelican, or even several sea gulls could cause this much damage. And from what he said there are tons of birds in the airport area, like you mentioned above.

      --

      Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
    2. Re:Catastrophic bird strike caused crash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your scenario seems entirely too plausible, and down right likely, to fit in with the general "lack of thought" posts on Slashdot. I am most surprised that it has been modded up rather than down.

      Most of the posters and moderators, so far, have been leaning strongly toward the terrorist action and conspiracy theories.

      It never ceases to amaze me how so many geeks of supposed intelligence have such twisted minds and seem to speak without thinking at all. I'm glad to see that you are not one of them.

      I am terribly saddened that this accident happened at all. But, it is completely beyond me why so many people want, yes want, it to be more than a terrible accident.

    3. Re:Catastrophic bird strike caused crash? by phillymjs · · Score: 2

      This is probably one of the two most likely scenarios, the other one being that one of the engines threw and then ate one of its fanblades-- American Airlines reported that one of the engines on the plane was practically brand-new and the other was nearing the 10,000-hour mark at which a major overhaul would be performed.

      If eyewitness accounts of both engines being aflame are true, then birds are very likely the cause-- though that must have been one hell of a big flock of them to completely doom the plane to crashing-- because they build thoe engines to withstand some serious shit:

      I remember the Discovery Channel documentary about the 777 airliner and the torture tests that they put its engines through: running it non-stop for a full year, IIRC; catapulting frozen turkeys into it while it was running at full-speed; running it while it ingests water equivalent to something like a 12-inches-per-hour-of-rainfall rainstorm; and lastly, deliberately severing one of the turbine blades at its base while it was running to see if the engine casing could withstand the impact (it did, and made for some impressive video in the process).

      ~Philly

    4. Re:Catastrophic bird strike caused crash? by nexthec · · Score: 1

      A 777 is just an air frame. the engines are selected by the group (read airlines) that purchases the plane. So all of those theing you just refrenced, while still are valid, are not about the 777, but about whatever brand of engine under the wing id GE, pratt-whitney, RollsRoyce, etc

    5. Re:Catastrophic bird strike caused crash? by phillymjs · · Score: 2

      IIRC, the 777 used Pratt & Whitney engines, at least during the prototype construction and testing that the documentary covered.

      ~Philly

    6. Re:Catastrophic bird strike caused crash? by kabloie · · Score: 2, Informative

      The GE engine is starting to have a pretty nasty resume:

      From the NY times article on the web (entitled "Pilots could do little if engine fell off")::

      "A CF-6 engine on a Continental Airlines DC-10 broke up on takeoff from Newark International Airport in April 2000, and in June 2000 a CF-6 on a Varig Airlines Boeing 767 broke up."

      In Alaska, there were 1000 geese just hanging out on the runway. It's ALASKA. This is one of the busier airports on the East Coast.

      I reject the bird theory. The POS engine theory is the one I am ascribing to.

      -kabloie

    7. Re:Catastrophic bird strike caused crash? by andy_from_nc · · Score: 1

      I think we should bring the migratory birds under the direction of the FAA and flight control. They should now be required to file a flight plan.

    8. Re:Catastrophic bird strike caused crash? by kabloie · · Score: 1

      They feed these engines a lot of turkeys. The pilot reported NO problems in the flight. ZERO. Not "Holy CRAP we just ate 2000 seabirds". Nothing!

      In regard to the AK military plane disaster, the E-3 AWACS probably uses an older engine. It's a very old airframe anyway (707, right?). Not as goose hardened as a new GE engine, probably. Elmendorf does not have the traffic to constantly scare birds away like JFK does.

      Now if we can just harden our planes against their own engines, we will be back in business.

      -kabloie

    9. Re:Catastrophic bird strike caused crash? by Coppit · · Score: 1
      What happens when you have flocks of birds rising by the thousands getting in the way of the flight path of an airliner taking off out into Jamaica Bay?

      Interestingly, the military has a "bird gun" which they use to fire dead chickens into the engines of airplanes. A friend of mine saw this thing in action, and he says that the big engines don't even hiccup for a single chicken-sized bird.

      There's a pretty funny story about the French (?) borrowing the gun, and when they fired it at a windshield, the bird went straight through and embedded itself in the bulkhead in the back of the cockpit. When they asked the Americans, about it, the Americans said "Thaw out the bird first". :)

    10. Re:Catastrophic bird strike caused crash? by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2

      NOT frozen turkeys; previously frozen turkeys maybe, frozen turkeys are going to be outside the design requirements of the engine. How often do you see frozen turkeys flying at 30,000 ft?

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    11. Re:Catastrophic bird strike caused crash? by shogun · · Score: 1

      Its pretty damn cold at 30,000ft, I think the only turkey's you would find at that altitude are most likely to be frozen.

    12. Re:Catastrophic bird strike caused crash? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      For that matter, how often do you see turkeys (frozen or thawed) flying at 300 feet? Or 30 feet? I hunt the little buggers, and they can't fly worth a darn.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    13. Re:Catastrophic bird strike caused crash? by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2

      You hunt frozen turkeys? ;-) You daredevil!

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    14. Re:Catastrophic bird strike caused crash? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      ROTFL! I can see myself now, camo from head to toe, trustly doublegun poised and at the ready, stalking those wily frozen turkeys in the freezer aisle of my local grocery store...

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  407. MOD UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is slashdot after all. Any other story and this would have been +5 Insightful.

  408. /. effect goes too far? by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 2

    The plane crashed shortly after 9 a.m. and thick, black smoke could be scene in televised reports.

    Apparently, the /. effect goes further than just bandwidth... looks like Taco's writing for Yahoo.

    Please note: I am not trying to be disrespectful in the face of death; I simply find that a little humor can cheer everyone up.

  409. Rebel. Live Normally. by bigdreamer · · Score: 1


    If we allow these criminals to alter our way of life to the point that we cease to function, or regulate ourselves into and Orwellian nightmare then we may as well lie down and die.

    Live your life as you always have.

    Not only should we live normally so the terrorists don't have control, we should live normally in order to have control over the terrorists.

    Think about it: If they really could blow up the US, if they really could take over, they would have done it by now. Their goal is to spread their twisted philosophy everywhere, right? So why haven't they taken control? The terrorist haven't done this because they aren't strong enough to take over the United States. So they're playing these games with Americans in order to frighten us into submission.

    9/11 was the first life-altering tragedy for many Americans. Time to crawl out from under the bed. Use that fear and energy to do better in your everyday tasks than ever before. It is our way of life, our freedom, that these people want to destroy, simply because their repressive ideas can't survive long in a free American society.

    Remember at the end of The Matrix, when the agents threw everything they could against Neo? Neo was untouched by the agents, because he realized how powerful he really was for the first time. The agents who weren't eliminated ran away.

    I'm not requesting anyone to stop bullets in their tracks. I am requesting everyone to find the strength within them to overcome any fear or anxiety these events are provoking in us. Realize how strong you are, and you can do just about anything.

    Rebel against the terrorists. Live normally.

    1. Re:Rebel. Live Normally. by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      ---Their goal is to spread their twisted philosophy everywhere, right? ---

      Not really. This sort of thinking is just sort of a knee-jerk cold war reflex: obviously the bad guys are trying to RULE THE WORLD with their CRAZY PHILOSOPHY. But for these Muslim extremists, and even for those that might wish it, that just isn't even a plausible goal, and they all know it.

      What they want is more pragmatic: to hurt us so bad, and prove to us that they can continue to hurt us, that we do things like move out of Saudi Arabia. This is the usual logic of terrorism: you hurt the other side until it decides it isn't worth it to resist. They want us to think this: "Are thousands of American lives worth stationing some troops in SA?" They want us to answer "no, they sure aren't."

      Now, I doubt that'll happen, but that is what Osama seems to ahve said, over and over, is their general aim: to get the U.S. out of all "Islamic" bussiness, a widely and crazily as he construes what that is. And if we don't, his god tells him that he has to torture us until we do it.

    2. Re:Rebel. Live Normally. by bigdreamer · · Score: 1

      Is Osama's belief about American intervention or his version of Islam?

      It's both. Read Osama's interview in 1998.

      Osama bin Laden on America in Saudi countries:
      "The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target. And not exempt of responsibility are those Western regimes whose presence in the region offers support to the American troops there."

      Questions: Why doesn't America helping the Muslim Kuwaitis in Desert Storm count? Also, what about helping the Muslim Croats fight against the Eastern Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans? If you read the article, most of Osama's criticism revolves around the US' support of Israel. Is this issue really about Islam or anti-Semitism?

      Osama bin Laden on spreading (his twisted version) of Islam:
      "I am one of the servants of Allah. We do our duty of fighting for the sake of the religion of Allah. It is also our duty to send a call to all the people of the world to enjoy this great light and to embrace Islam and experience the happiness in Islam. Our primary mission is nothing but the furthering of this religion."

      While spreading a religion is fine, I personally don't consider ObL's interpretation of Islam to be accurate or representative of the religion, as many Muslims have been telling us. That's why I say his philosophy is twisted.

    3. Re:Rebel. Live Normally. by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      ---Why doesn't America helping the Muslim Kuwaitis in Desert Storm count? ---

      Osama doesn't care about anyone "helping" anyone. To him, American troops on holy land = Satan raping the virgin Mary.

      ---If you read the article, most of Osama's criticism revolves around the US' support of Israel. Is this issue really about Islam or anti-Semitism?---

      One doesn't need to be an anti-Semite to hate the nation of Israel. I personally don't like it much myself, and it be pretty silly to call me anti-Semite, being that I've... ermum... fulfilled Abraham's covenant with God....
      It may well include Israel. My point remains the same: Bin Laden believes that, via torture, he can change U.S. foriegn policy, which he sees as being the chief evil in his region.

      ---While spreading a religion is fine, I personally don't consider ObL's interpretation of Islam to be accurate or representative of the religion, as many Muslims have been telling us. That's why I say his philosophy is twisted.---

      I never said it wasn't twisted. I said that it's probably not helpful to misconstrue his aims into outdated Cold War rhetoric.
      I also don't see the point in trying to define what religions are "twisted" and what aren't. I don't happen to believe in any of them. I can't say I much love the very idea of evangelism itself: it's a pretty twisted idea to think that other people must believe what you believe. It's way easier, and less biased, for me to talk about how people act than about what they believe. I don't personally care what "true" or "accurate" Islam may be: I don't care if someone is Islamic or not. All I care about is when a person is a genocidal maniac, no matter what their beliefs, and Al Queda is full of them.

    4. Re:Rebel. Live Normally. by bigdreamer · · Score: 1

      My point remains the same: Bin Laden believes that, via torture, he can change U.S. foriegn policy, which he sees as being the chief evil in his region.

      OK, I agree.

      I said that it's probably not helpful to misconstrue his aims into outdated Cold War rhetoric.

      Outdated Cold War rhetoric? I wasn't even alive for most of the Cold War. My point is that Osama wants his thoughts to spread, especially among other Muslims.

      I also don't see the point in trying to define what religions are "twisted" and what aren't. I don't happen to believe in any of them.

      Me neither.

      I can't say I much love the very idea of evangelism itself: it's a pretty twisted idea to think that other people must believe what you believe.

      I disagree with evangelism, too. However, I'd rather deal with the nonviolent form of evangelism that most religious people practice than Osama's.

      I know some about Islam, but I'm not an expert. So I'm giving my Muslim friends the benefit of the doubt when they say Osama's actions are not Islamic, and that he's taking some things in the Koran out of context. I've witnessed a similar phenomenon with the Christian Bible in use, so I try to empathize as much as possible.

    5. Re:Rebel. Live Normally. by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      ----Outdated Cold War rhetoric? I wasn't even alive for most of the Cold War. My point is that Osama wants his thoughts to spread, especially among other Muslims. ----

      You needn't have been alive to get exposed to recylcing of this idea. It even bears similarities the "Hitler" syndrome, where everyone compares every evil person to Hitler, as if this comparison illuminated anything helpful about the specific situation. Yes, Osama would like to win support among Muslims. His primary way of doing it, however, seems to be by baiting the U.S. further into outraging them. He knows that the majority of them would NEVER come on their accord to believe what he believes, or even condone his terrorism: but he obviously feels that he can play up the evils of the U.S., which many Muslims DO have major problems with, regardless of whether they actually support Osama.

      ---I know some about Islam, but I'm not an expert. So I'm giving my Muslim friends the benefit of the doubt when they say Osama's actions are not Islamic, and that he's taking some things in the Koran out of context. I've witnessed a similar phenomenon with the Christian Bible in use, so I try to empathize as much as possible.---

      I think that anyone who tells you that there is a "right" context to take phrases in a holy text is misleading you. Interpretations are ultimately just people's personal opinions, and should be stated as such. The real important thing is to reassure believers that they are not responsible for other people's interpretations. But it's silly to run around pretending that, say, a literalist interpretation of the Bible is somehow "wrong." It's not. When faith is involved, an especially when there's the perception that God's words are cryptic and gnostical, then one can read into a text any damn thing you need to.

  410. Re:*Leap* by akeb · · Score: 1
    Destroying thousands of future soldiers, exterminating another relativist culture, ... does make a significant impact.

    Certainly. Slaughtering conscripts does make a significant impact, if nothing else for their wifes and children. Exterminating a culture? Impact by definition.

    Read your American history. Barbary pirates. Nazis. Mexican raids. Etc. A lack of response guarantees failure.

    My American history tells the story of a nation that has often, with some notable exceptions, put short term gains before ideals like democracy. It has been that way, but it doesn't need to be that way. I hope the future will bring us an America that stands up for what's right rather than what's profitable in the short run. I agree with you that doing nothing isn't an alternative though.

    Discussing both options like you've proposed, how does not doing anything not kill more people abroad and in the US?

    I fail to see why not waging a war against the Talibans means doing nothing. Here's my suggestion for doing something:

    * Release the evidence that supposedly binds Bin Laden to the September 11'th attacks. The public as well as the Taliban have the right to see that the accusations are well founded.
    * Identify and bring terrorists to justice, using force if necessary. Courtrooms and jails are better than assassinations in dark alleys.
    * Inform the Afghan public about democracy and how they can live a better life if they topple the Taliban.
    * Increase cooperation between intelligence agencies. Think of better security measures that doesn't infringe too much on our civil liberites. Use the courts to seize terrorist funds.
    * Ally with democracies, not dictators. At least, don't support totalitarian states.

    Appeasement to make "other people like us" is guaranteed to fail, and furthermore, makes dirty bastards like you as guilty as the killers.

    Are you saying that by suggesting an alternative strategy for combating terrorism that doesn't require the deaths of thousand of conscripted kids and fathers, as well as hundreds of innocent civilans, I'm somehow to be considered as a terrorist myself? With that definition, your quest for infinite justice will be long indeed. And if you aren't lucky, perhaps you too will succumb as part of the "unintended damage" somewhere along the way.

  411. WTF already? by KlomDark · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    I know it'll take a long long time to route out the terrorist networks. But why do we not have Bin Laden in custody yet?

    That shouldn't take all that much time. Seems like we are just not putting enough effort into it, instead letting the Northern Alliance fight most of the battles for us.

    We just need to get him, and get him alive, to get all the information he has in his head. Drag him over here alive, start pumping him full of truth serum, and that will be more information on the terrorist networks in a day than we'll get in a year of normal covert "investigating".

    Pick the four most likely areas we think he is in, drop sleep gas or something in mass quantities on those areas, drop in a monstrous amount of troops, grab every person that looks vaguely like him, lock them up somewhere, and then figure out which one is the real Bin Laden. Sort of a macabre "Where's Waldo" game.

    Is is just me, or is Step One of the "War on Terrorism" taking way too long?

    1. Re:WTF already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's hope it's just you.

      While it's true that everyone would rather a quick end to the conflict, not the least being the Afghan people, things like this take time. Most especially when avoiding civillian casualties and collateral damage are a high priority.

      While it certainly might be nice to "drop sleep gas" and have overwhelming forces sweep in and take over, reallity makes this improbable, if not impossible.

      I would recommend that you spend a little less time watching fictional television, as the physical world seems to operate some what differently than you fantasy world does.

    2. Re:WTF already? by ctid · · Score: 1
      Errrr... Here's a useful link: CIA world factbook. Specifically, look at:
      Area comparative: Slightly smaller than Texas.

      This is a big country, with mountain ranges to hide in and tens of thousands of hostile troops. You don't just "drop sleep gas" and stroll in and pick up OBL.

      Or were you joking?


      --
      Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
    3. Re:WTF already? by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Yes but those stupid little "Human Rights Laws", "Right to fair trail" and other crappy things will get in the way. Anyway lets look at the facts here:

      On the one side we have: G. W. "Most of our imports come from outside the country" Bush, with a government is so incompetant that they allow security to be low enough for someone to hi-jack not 1, but 4 planes in the same day, and crash them into major buildings. Commanding a large group of people who can't aim to save their lives (the airforce) and helped by Tony Blair (speaks for himself)

      Then on the other side we have: Osama Bin Laden, a man feared by many, who has managed to evade the _entire_ resources of the US for 2 months and for all the years they've been looking for him. His terrorist network spans the globe and his notable achevements include demolishing the World Trade Center, and smashing up the Pentagon with only a few mobile phones, a camel and an AK-47. Even if hes caught, he would probably kill himself before giving anything away, and the rest of his network would go on an all-out assult on the world....

      HMMMMM, lets see now... Bush... Bin Laden... Bush... Bin Laden... Dumb ape... Hitler Re-born...
      well... we're screwed.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    4. Re:WTF already? by DrSpin · · Score: 1
      If there is anything in his head, its higly unlikely we need it.

      The reason "intelligence" isn't working is cos you are dealing with deranged morons manipulated by crazed nutters.

      The intelligence community is geared to handling complex military planning and organised outfits. The military mind is in trouble when dealing with ignorant, fanatical maniacs.

      They probably don't communicate a lot, and have little in the way of plans.

      The best way to deal with them is to conscrip a bunch of crackheads , dope them up, give them some humvees full of ammo, and drop them in the war zone. Then it will be a fair fight.

  412. Re:You people are sick! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if the investigation concludes that it was an "accident", that's not completely satisfactory. A good sabotage would look like an accident

    Of course, you aren't a conspiracy theorist, are you? Your statement suggests that any conclusion, other than one that states this was a terrorist action, will be unsatisfactory. That's very open minded of you, isn't it?

    You certainly lend credence to the original post.

  413. Re:*Leap* by wierdo · · Score: 1

    When you have termites in your house - even just a few, you eradicate them to avoid them taking everything over and your house falling down. That's the current situation.

    One should not compare Human Beings who presumably have reasons for their extreme actions to termites. Human Beings, unless they are threatening you with imminent death (which, irregardless of your irrational fear OBL is not), deserve better than that. Attitudes such as yours only continue the cycle of violence.

    I do not advocate allowing ourselves to be trampled upon, but different circumstances require different methods. We are not fighting an army, we are fighting a few very desperate people. Take away their fear of being eradicated by us, and they will stop terrorizing us. When we stop supporting terrorists of our own, terrorists will leave us alone.

    Resist the cycle of violence and hate.

    -Nathan

    --
    Care about freedom?
    Become a card carrying member of the GOA.
  414. Maybe. But doubtful. by aepervius · · Score: 1

    If it was so "easy" there would be far more of those device on every plane to spread terror. Probably far more economical than train people to fly plane to strike two tower. I am not saying that the article at salon.com is wrong , only that it leaves probably important fact. Like how do look such explosive device with a detonator inside on a Xray film ? Probably suspect , something you do not await in an electronic device. But then again that is only my opinion, not fact. I can only say you that from what I know of airport security it is at least enough.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Maybe. But doubtful. by czardonic · · Score: 1

      If it was so "easy" there would be far more of those device on every plane to spread terror.

      Well, let's consider another threat: shoulder-launched missles. Commecial airliners are sitting ducks for these things, and it is well known that terrorist groups have many (possibly thousands) of them (many were given to groups in Afghanistan who are now affiliated with the Taliban). Now, these have been used to shoot down commercial airliners in the past. However, like bombs, incidents have been rare. I don't pretend to know why. Perhaps there simply aren't as many mass murderers as the Gov./Media would like us to beleive there are. Regardless, what this shows is that the relative rarity of these incidents are not due to security (since there IS no security against SLMs).

      As far as explosives showing up on X-Ray, I doubt that the detonator would set off any alarm bells if it were inside another electronic device. Moreover, it seems like every week since the attacks I have heard a news story about security screening personel failing to catch guns and knives in carry-one luggage (no nail clippers, phew!). As such, I am not reassured.

      --
      Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
  415. WARNING: KARMA WHORE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gee thanks, like i couldn't have found a picture on my own of this event.

  416. BBC by hether · · Score: 1

    The BBC earlier today was on low graphics mode (which I like) due to "unprecedented traffic" to their web site. Tell me why are they getting more traffic today than they would on say Sept. 11 or 12?? I understand people are interested to learn about another potential terrorist attack, but this situation was announced almost from the start as likely to be an accident or mechanical failure. The only people that died were the people on the plane. Could it be that more people are home because of the Veterans Day holiday or because they are laid off work? Just thought it was odd today would be their highest traffic day ever.

    --

    Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
    1. Re:BBC by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      They have a special program that monitors slashdot for any links to the bbc, if a link occurs, the site automatically anticipates slashdotting and goes into low-graphics mode. Then they retaliate by bombing slashdot until Taco gives himself up.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  417. Re:"time to buy when there's blood in the streets. by junkgrep · · Score: 1

    ---So here's deliberate, appropriate action: grab dropping stocks! Prevent further damage to the economy, take importants assets out of the hands of incompetent handlers, and make a little something for yourself.----

    These sorts of arguements are so misguided that it's hard to even know where to begin.

    Spending money on one thing, instead of on another thing, can't help or hurt the economy. We can't get richer just by buying things from each other.

    There's no justifiable reason to buy stocks other than that you like holding those particular stocks (you actually value THEM). Buying a stock transfers some stock to you from somebody else, enriches all the current owners of that stock, and hurts all the potential buyers of that stock BY EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT. Leaving on net, no benefit or loss to the economy as a whole. Patriotism doesn't turn a bad investment into a good investment. If you think the stocks might perk up in the future, and you're willing to take the risk that they won't buy them. If not, not. It's that simple.

  418. Re:*Leap* by wierdo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What an incredibly naive statment. When a fanatic wants to kill you, talking to him to "end the cycle of violence" only gives him more opportunities to kill you. When Hitler tried to take over the world, did we try to stop the "cycle of violance" by talking to him? HELL NO! We responded with force. We killed the enemy. That's how you end the cycle of violence.

    Contrary to popular belief, terrorists are not Hitler, nor are they comparable to Hitler. Terrorists are terrorists by choice, because of some percieved wrong against them. Take away their reason for terrorizing and they stop. Hitler was a madman who managed to subvert an entire country. As another poster pointed out, McVeigh would not have bombed OKC had we not first murdered the Branch Davidians in Waco. When you do such things to begin a cycle of violence and hate, it does not end until you let it end. People like you, unfortunately, choose to not let it end.

    Also contrary to popular belief, killing millions of innocent people in Germany did nothing to end the cycle of violence and hate. Nor, it turns out, did nuking Japan, although I still believe that given the information we had at the time, it was the best course of action known to our leaders. A very unfortunate one. Until we learn to stop killing each other over petty differences and lose this drive for "revenge" (which, btw, does not bring back, or otherwise let the dead rest more easily) the cycle of violence and hate will continue.

    Resist the cycle of violence and hate.

    P.S. Free clue for you: It is not the "cycle of violence," it is the "cycle of violence and hate." Without hate, the violence would stop. The only way to stop hate is to stop violence, and the only way to stop violence is to stop hate. Sometimes I think we are really less evolved than most "wild" animals. We certainly act like it.

    -Nathan

    --
    Care about freedom?
    Become a card carrying member of the GOA.
  419. Insider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd be suprised by the volume of hits CNN.com gets on days like this (1.3M+ hits/min) and the system of load balacing is enough to make your head spin... 'lightening the home page' is just one strategy to keep the the site from going up in flames. CNN.com could cause the Slashdot effect on Slashdot.org if a link where placed on the homepage.

  420. Or a -9 terminate thread and moderator command by owlmeat · · Score: 1

    An excellent example of using moderator privilege to spout political opinion.

    --
    They stab it with their steely knives,

    But they just can't kill the beast.

  421. Crash! real reason by canadian_right · · Score: 1
    1]
    The Taliban noticed that Amercian support for bombing Afghanistan was waning so they quickly arranged to down another airliner to assure the continued support of the American public for the current war campaign.

    2]
    Replace "Taliban" with "American right-Wing Nutcases" and repeat 1].

    3]
    Replace "Taliban" with "your favorite violent lunatic group" and repeat 1].

    4]
    It was a 'normal' tragic accident.

    5]
    No one actually knows yet, but once the media feeding frenzy ends we'll find out from some calm and boring official.

    --
    Anarchists never rule
    1. Re:Crash! real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5 followed by 4

  422. Re:Signal by tzanger · · Score: 2

    IMO bin laden claimed responisbiliry yesterday so perhaps that was a signal

    Where, in your opinion did he do such a thing?

  423. Wiring? by ZaneMcAuley · · Score: 1

    Kapton wiring, its a hidden secret within the industry that Kapton wiring was BANNED by the military but is currently in use by commercial companies.

    And its also caused many incidents.

    http://www.iasf.net/kapton_wiring.htm
    http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2001-06- 14 -wiring.htm
    http://www.iasa.com.au/twaletter.html
    http://www.iasa.com.au/BOEINGFISR.html

    --
    ----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
  424. Re:*Leap* by kd5biv · · Score: 1

    It is actually quite normal for planes to crash every now and then, therefore it is most likely to be an accident.

    Before 9/11, a plane crash used to be a more or less guaranteed headline. The PA crash on 9/11 was the first major airline crash I know of since CNN went on the air that *didn't* get at least a full day of "breaking news" coverage. I remember that as the thing that really gave me a sense of scale to the NYC/Pentagon attacks -- a crash like that was a minor byline to the day's events, and only really got airtime because it was related to the attacks. One measure of how 9/11 changed our perception is that so many [more] people now automatically think 'terrorism' when an airliner crashes.

    Maybe it's just an accident. I agree with other folks here -- they do happen, all the FAA's and NTSB's best efforts to the contrary ..

    --


    73 de N5VB (ex-KD5BIV) AR SK
  425. Adding drag increases glide distance ... huh? by wmoore · · Score: 1

    First off, you're nuts. I can gaurantee that ADDING drag in the form of a parachute will not increase the glide distance of a modern airliner.

    1. Re:Adding drag increases glide distance ... huh? by Russ+Steffen · · Score: 2

      Hey, it's not my idea. I think it's a looney idea too. I was just pointing out that a company with an established ballistic parachute product for light planes thinks it will work on a 747 as well.

      Also, the way they were planning on deploying the chutes on an airliner, it wouldn't just add drag, it would add drag and lift. When fully filled, the parachutes looked more like a parasails, essentially adding a bunch of wing area.

  426. ABC, CBS, CNN - all up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to troll, but...

    ABCnews, CBSnews.com (Linux/Apache)
    CNN.com (Solaris/Netscape)
    BOTH were able to take intensive network loads
    from today's events...

    MSNBC.com (Win2000/IIS)
    Down for half the day.

    my goodness.

    1. Re:ABC, CBS, CNN - all up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it could be because they didnt have a good server architecture, load balancing, routing, backend sql server partitioned.

      Its not just he code., its also the server architecture.

      Get a life

  427. Re:What does it prove? by bark76 · · Score: 1
    a) "all of them",
    b) 10,000,000-1,000,000
    c) 1,000,000-100,000
    d) 100,000-10,000
    e) 10,000-1,000
    f) 1-1000
    g) none



    You forgot: h) cowboy neal

  428. Maybe it was like flight 191 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone remember American Airlines flight 191 in 1979? Basically the plane crashed because AA mechanics took some maintenance shortcuts. After all there was an airworthyness directive from the FAA, maybe the AA mechs did something silly here.

  429. Explosion tore the wing off by einhverfr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    OK. So that makes it sound like a terrorist, but not so fast...

    Here is my logic: A high explosive device that was able to tear the wing off would have caused some pretty spectacular effects and not caused the fires that were seen. So it was probably not a high explosive.

    Low explosives are not much more of a candidate either-- it would be really hard to make a dangerous LE device on a plane.

    However, there is a class of explosives that would work-- high blast pressures, fires, and low ranges: fuel-air explosives, or FAE's. Note that the fuel has to go through the wing to the engine, so it has to go into the wing. If there was a leak, an explosion could have caused everything that was seen.

    So I think that a fuel leak around the junction of the wing was responsible along with a spark, excess heat, or something. So one is back to accident or sabotage.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  430. Re:You people are sick! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems that you are right. This whacked out earlier post gets +2 Infromative, while you get modded down to -1 Flamebait.

    The Slashdot majority have spoken and collectively decided what they want to read, as well as what they want others to read. Unfortunately, they all seem to be complete morons.

  431. But there have always been birds by ElDuque · · Score: 1

    I've heard of this happening before, and I've heard of the "chicken cannon" project.
    IANAP (pilot), but I would think something could be done to protect the engines.....especially if , as you say,

    To the west and south of JFK Airport is a very large marshy area that serves as a sanctuary for migratory birds (plus some native waterfowl)

    and other planes have been brought down by this before. I'm not saying this theory is wrong, but I am wondering why the reaction seems to be "well, looks like this one ran into some birds....I guess that'll happen sometimes."

    I'm imagining a cone of some sort, but I'm not an engineer (yet).

  432. Fuel dumped? by ZerothAngel · · Score: 2, Interesting
    According to CNN, the pilot dumped the fuel before the plane went down. I wonder where the fuel went? Into the bay? Onto neighborhoods below?

    Regardless, it shows last-minute straight-thinking on the pilot's part. The fire on the ground could have been much worse.

    1. Re:Fuel dumped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Depending on the altitude the fuel may never have hit the ground. (unknown in this case). It will evaporate quite quickly as it gets dispersed in the air. It isn't that uncommon to dump fuel before an emergency landing and yet we don't hear about significant problems because of it. (ie: neighborhoods bursting into flames).

  433. Important Announcement to you lamerz: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been reading Another Plan Down in New
    York since 9:45 and up until now there is
    nothing new.

    What has this story accomplished at Slashdot?
    Just clicks.

    So long and have a happy ride down with VA
    Linux.

  434. Re:*Leap* by Pinky · · Score: 1

    of course. You think anyone over 20 has the time to look through these groups? :-)

  435. How to Prevent All Future Wars, Terrorist Attacks by Uzbok · · Score: 1

    It's rather simple: systematic extermination of the entire human race.

    We're all badly behaved little monkeys, really, and we're not going to stop biting each other any time soon. So, before we kill ourselves AND the only known chunk of rock that can successfully sustain diverse and plentiful life, let's just stop all the fightin' and the fussin' and start the exterminatin'.

    Or at least get a bunch of those Euphio machines. We'll torture Vonnegut until he tells us how.

  436. Re:*Leap* by rossz · · Score: 2

    Since I don't hate Muslims, I don't see how your silly ideas can make a difference. You need to talk to the extremists who hate Westerners for whatever reason. I suggest you fly over to Afghanistan and personally talk to them. I'm sure they will listen to reason.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
  437. Stingers, and bird strikes, oh my by WillSeattle · · Score: 1

    Well, while it is possible that it's a large sea bird, it's unlikely to be a Stinger.

    Far easier to use a fire and forget anti-tank weapon - the profile of a plane on takeoff would allow for this, and it's fairly easy to buy these in a number of states, especially at gun shows with minimal forged (or legit) documentation and then pop it in a trunk to transport.

    -

    --
    --- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
  438. The War on Birds begins! by rebelcool · · Score: 5, Funny
    We must seek these birds out in their nests before they strike again!

    Dick, lets launch some tomahawks! I like their perdy smoke trails...

    --

    -

    1. Re:The War on Birds begins! by kir · · Score: 1

      That's not funny. Must of been moderated by morons.

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
  439. Realize what's dumb, but keep thinking by WillSeattle · · Score: 1

    No, National ID cards wouldn't have stopped this if a terrorist attack.

    But it points out a few things, however.

    One is that not federalizing airport screening personnel is really dumb. As is not paying them decent wages.

    Another is that a good terrorist group will always use slightly different attacks, but that perhaps our overreliance on planes is not a good thing. In fact, why are we not asking ourselves how soon instead of if we will be building a nationwide high-speed rail system for passengers and freight.

    And yet one more is - why are we not screening all baggage, no matter the source, no matter which country.

    There are things we can do. That we know would help. And there are things we aren't doing, for political reasons that have no basis in reality.

    For the rest, let's remain calm. It's still safer to fly today than to drive.

    -

    --
    --- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
  440. cause of crash by spikeham · · Score: 1


    It is clear from what is being reported in the media that something occured just after takeoff causing mechanical damage including the complete seperation of one engine, and a very quick subsequent loss of control and crash.

    There are two general possibilities for the cause:

    1. Accident
    The flight encountered some unexpected mechanical problem not caused by the intentional action of any person. For example, the engine could have had a catastrophic mechanical failure of its fan, causing loss of the engine and possibly additional damage to the body or wing which made the plane uncontrollable. Similar incidents have caused other jet planes to crash.

    2. Intentional act
    Someone intentionally caused the damage to the plane. This could happen numerous ways, but the most likely possibility is that of a bomb going off inside the body of the plane, producing enough debris to take out one engine.

    Only the detailed technical forensic analysis of the wreckage will conclusively point to one possibility or the other.

    If the crash of a fully-fueled jumbo jet onto a residential area of New York City was not an intentional act by the 9/11 terrorists, then they are unbelievably lucky that fate has caused an incident which perfectly matches what they would have liked to accomplish themselves. So unbelievable, that I can't believe it was just an accident.

    1. Re:cause of crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is you all over.

  441. "lose" not "loose" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd expect that somebody's going to loose their FAA ratings.

    come on now..

  442. Osama Big Birden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuff' said.

  443. To both the ACs and the Moderators by stinkydog · · Score: 2

    To both the ACs and the Moderators

    So much for rewarding those reporting breaking news. It was the best available when reported. Look at the time of posting before flaming a poor soul.

    --
    âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
  444. You're thinking about the wrong type of parachute by Migelikor1 · · Score: 2

    Wrong, buddy. An airplane is a realy heavy thing in midair moving forward really fast. Its wings aren't big enough (aren't generating enough lift) to let it glide at low speeds. However, the addition of 4 1600 pound foil type chutes (think aerial demonstrators) greatly increases the airfoil surface available, and could let the plane generate enough lift to increase its glide distance. It's a question of getting your forward speed to keep you up, not slowing down your downward fall directly.

    --
    My Karma is so good, I'm the Dalai Lama...or something.
  445. Re:How to Prevent All Future Wars, Terrorist Attac by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    I agree, but i also think we should get rid of Bush first. You never know, it could just be a jinksed (spelling?) presedent thats causing the trouble. No need to ditch the whole world without checking.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  446. Re:*Leap* by overunderunderdone · · Score: 2, Informative

    Given that neither reaction nor inaction will prevent further attacks,

    I don't think you can take that as a given.

    but consider these points.
    Which course (action or inaction) will encourage contempt and future aggression? (Clue: Neville Chamberlain, Bin Ladens comments after we retreated from Somolia)

    Which course makes killing Americans a risk free and easy way to advance your political cause (whatever it might be)

    Which course leaves our avowed enemies (which you concede WILL attack us) free to stage those future attacks without interference.

    As for responding to your points:
    Which course will polarise world opinion, leading previously moderate people to support radical organisations? (Clue: look at Pakistan.)

    Answer: Inaction - Yes, lets look at Pakistan for a clue. A nation that supported the Taliban and even Al Queada and a regime that has a lot of sympathy to both. Yet they actively support us - why? I think the answer is our likely "action" if they had continued support for radical organisations. As for the Pakistani "street" where there is unrest (though not really very much by Pakistani standards) as long as individual support for radical organisations is going to organisations that are harrassed by every government, without a safe haven and ineffectual - who cares.

    Which course will kill innocent people abroad, in addition to those who have already died in the US? (Clue: look at Afghanistan.)

    Answer: Inaction - Al Queada as a particular organisation has as a STATED OBJECTIVE the acquisition AND USE of Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons to pursue a holy war against all infidels on formerly Muslim lands (According to bin Laden this includes Spain by the way) - given time and the safety of Afghanistan they will succeed in this objective. Even in Afghanistan direct civillian casualites from US attacks pale in comparison to past attrocities by all other parties to the conflict - Casualties from famine is the real threat and is a powerful argument for a MORE aggresive attack that will put a larger portion of the population behind UF lines where aid can more readily reach them. The increased attention the war is generating is probably a boon to the millions of Afghan refugees *with were already* in Pakistan and Iran.

    Which course will perpetuate a cycle of violence and be used to justify further attacks? (Clue: look at the Balkans, Northern Ireland, Israel and Palestine.)

    Inaction: All of the "clues" you provide are instances of people with different ethnic groups occupying the same ground where no lasting "victory" is possible - that is not the case with the US and any muslim land unless you think we are planning to colonise Afghanistan. Why not other "clues" of the inevitable "cycle of violence" war must always create? Look at the "cycle of violence" between the US and it's past enemies: England, Canada (at the time part of the British Empire) Mexico, Spain, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Vichy France, Korea (& China), Russia (a cold war but "enemies" none the less) even Vietnam which we completely botched but I still wouldn't characterise American and Vietnamese relations as a "cycle of violence" like the other "clues" you mentioned. In some of these cases our relationships are actually better for having had a war - can you imagine that we would be as friendly as we are with Germany, Italy and Japan if we had not gone to war against them? And there was a *massively* greater number of civilian casualties, displacement, ethnic expulsions, genocide & atrocities to feed a cycle of violence in those cases.

  447. Re:How to Prevent All Future Wars, Terrorist Attac by Uzbok · · Score: 1

    Hmmmm . . . your solution seems not to involve my own death . . . not bad, not bad.

    I, personally, think it's interesting how clear a choice America was given in 2000--Mr. Environment, Mr. Clinton-Style Peace Lover, Al Gore, vs. Mr. America First, Bushie. Of course, the sad thing is, most people didn't care until the big Chad Crisis.

    Gore may have been too namby-pamby, too soft, too wimpish, to have effective dealt with this, but I don't think Bush's hard line will be effective in the long run either.

    I guess systematically wiping out mankind might be
    a bit of a sticky wicket; it'd be hard to do right, and of course, there's all those bleeding hearts who wouldn't want to die. Still . . don't let the terrorists destroy civilization! Let's destroy it ourselves, first! Then what do they do? Crash an airplane into *our* caves? Bwa ha ha ha!

    And either way, whether we're killing everyone or merely rubblizing ourselves, think of the economic benefits! Either project would require so much effort that unemployment would vanish! Come to think of it, what if we just kill the unemployed?

    If Al Qaida thinks they can solve problems by killing people, boy howdy, they ain't seen nothing yet.

  448. Re:*Leap* by Christopher+Chang · · Score: 1

    Your principle, stamping out violence and hate in the world by resisting your own impulses of that nature, and thus theoretically shunting a feedback cycle, is noble.



    Alas, applying a theory without fully understanding its context can be just as fatal in the social sciences as it is in the "hard" sciences.



    The question is, is the primary dynamic here a feedback cycle of violence and hate? Or are there other factors here we have to pay attention to? Some groups can be appeased effectively and a reasonable or even highly mutually beneficial coexistence can be arranged. Others cannot be, and either us or them will end up exterminated. Anyone who says that all cases are of one type are ignorant of history.



    So, the question becomes, what sort of enemy are these terrorists? I would argue the latter, and I'm prepared to back it up. But it would be pointless for me to do so before you're willing to admit that a determination needs to be made in the first place.



    -- Dog of Justice. *waves at rossz*

  449. Re:You people are sick! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm, yes, after an exhaustive half day investigation, the cause of the crash has been determined beyond all reasonable doubt to be accidental. Anyone who questions this authoritative official conclusion must be some kind of lunatic.

  450. Re:How to Prevent All Future Wars, Terrorist Attac by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    Im not scared of being hit by a plane, what worries me the most is that the man with the big red button is... well.. Bush
    (2DTV lol)

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  451. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But do you kill his countrymen? His family? His friends? If you can't find him, do you bomb his house? His city? The whole planet?

    Mrogers provides a good illustration of the jurisdictional issue of retribution/response; e.g. "what level or hierarchy do we respond to?"

    The functional response we are seeing is that of the nation-state level. OBL is in Afghanistan. OBL is protected by Afghanistan. Afghanistan's government says "we'd rather die and sacrifice all of our people than give up OBL." Afghanistan's Taliban represents itself as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. The Afghani people do not have an uprising to offer a counterclaim.

    Therefore the people of Afghanistan have spoken. They are defending and supporting OBL.

    Now, as enlightened persons, we can believe that there are some Afghani people who do not support OBL and the Taliban (despite substantial evidence to the contrary in certain regions). We can also claim that "Afghanistan" is a false British construct - that there are unique tribes, and jurisdictional responsibility is related to tribe, not nation-state.

    We can believe that the Taliban are instead a dominant tribe that is speaking as if they were a nation-state, but is only a tribe. We can identify their tribe and the others that support them and punish them at that tribal level.

    This appears to be the approach of the US government and has substantial justification.

    If one of your principles is not to kill innocent people, then it may be necessary to not fight in order to uphold that principle.

    Very good observation, although perplexing that it came from mrogers. You attacked my recognition that innocents may indeed be killed and this should be accepted as the consequence for their living in a region that accepted the wrong leaders.

    As has been the case for at least a few thousand years, the innocents will pay a heavier price. But again, this decision is not made in a vacuum, for if no fight is made by the US, it is certain that millions of more innocents will die by permitting OBL and his type to reign unchallenged.

    Remember mrrogers and death-seekers like him: our innocents have already begun to die. We have thousands lost in NYC as the most recent example. While these innocents are meaningless to you, we will defend them. Those that harbor OBL and his kind through thought, word and deed will be held accountable for their choice.

  452. Re:Don't think, don't react. by dswensen · · Score: 2

    Yeah, fight the power! Happiness is just The Man telling you how to feel!

  453. Re:*Leap* by Mirus+Nex · · Score: 1
    We are not fighting an army, we are fighting a few very desperate people.

    The problem is we can't go in and "pick out" the few desperate people. If we could do that then we would...

    Take away their fear of being eradicated by us, and they will stop terrorizing us. When we stop supporting terrorists of our own, terrorists will leave us alone.

    Excuse me? They (OBL/Taliban) *HATE* us (US people and nation), they hate Christians, freedom and Capitalism. Everything the US stands for is against their ideals (poverty, Allah, etc...). When you have irrational thought (hatred) towards another you do anything to affect them in some way (eradication). The primarily provocation to 9/11 was American idealism, why they targetted the WTC. So, unless you want to start torturing women, growing beards, throwing your TV out, smashing your radios, demolishing your house and erecting a non-insulated hut out of cardboard and praising Allah to appease the terrorists they will continue to hate/despise the US. We can't simply overthrow their government by creating civil unrest they are too strong. Religion is a powerful tool that OBL doesn't hesitate to use for his cause, the citizens are uneducated so they don't know what a Lazy-Boy recliner and a 64" HDTV is. Or even how enjoyable watching -put favorite sport here- is with a cold brew in one hand a bowl of popcorn in the other. Put yourself in their shoes (hard to do) and then try to create a plan to band your unarmed, underfed neighbors together to overthrow the well armed government, not gonna happen. So, some body needs to help you do this, which is what we (US, Britain, NA, etc...) are doing. Once they establish a peaceful regime we'll leave them alone, or probably help their government succeed. Granted, we'll try our damndest to create a democratic society which is, IMO, the wrong thing to do, we tend to force American Ideals on everyone which may not be for their best interests. At the very least it'll be a better society than it is today. Agree?

    Sorry for being far off topic but I'm tired of reading and hearing about all this "peacenik" rhetoric. The US was ATTACKED by a foreign entity, we know who was behind it. By doing this they brought war upon themselves and their people. We can't just look the other way we need to defend ourselves. The only way to defend ourselves is to eliminate the threat of future attacks. In eliminating threats we may kill civilians, they forced us to do this, they don't care about their people, we care about our people and, to some extent, their people. If you don't like the fact that the US is defending itself then get the hell out or shut-up!

  454. Airplane diverted after skymarshals report problem by zbuffered · · Score: 1

    I just saw that on CNN (tv). It was flying out of Pittsburgh, and was going to Washington. It was diverted to Dulles from another airport after the skymarshalls reported a problem. What the problem is is not yet known. Anybody know anything about this?

    --
    Synergy is your friend
  455. Re:You're thinking about the wrong type of parachu by wmoore · · Score: 1

    Actually, I was thinking of the correct type. a) I'm an aerospace engineer in the industry. b) I skydive. I'm very familiar with both planes and parachutes.

    To quote the website that you referrenced: "In a very short amount of time, the aircraft will cease any swinging and stabilize under the now fully-opened canopy at zero forward airspeed."

    Kind of hard to glide with ZERO forward airspeed. A modern airliner can glide, from altitude, miles and miles. There was a recent (few months ago) mishap where a plane lost all engines and glided over 60 miles to the nearest airport. At the altitudes (low) that any increase in glide ratio would be usefull, the chute wouldn't have time to deploy and stabilize. Not to mention that turning would be next to impossible in that configuration, so forget about picking a decent place to land, you're going down wherever you happen to be pointing.

  456. appears to be shitty maintenance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    The titanium vanes in the engines sometimes are not forged properly and are prone to cracking where the vane edge joins the mounting bracket. If the vane breaks the whole engine fails catastrophically, like this one where the engine fell off while in flight.

    There was a similar failure on a DC-10 that crashed in Sioux City, IA in 1989. It was eventually found that the airline in that crash (United) had been sold vanes that had been rejected by the military because of the cracks, but were resold by a broker. United had installed them without doing metallurgy tests on them.

  457. media by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2

    That would assume that the media had their shit together _before_ Sept 11, which would be a very bad assumption. This is just the latest thing for them to hype all out of proportion - SOP for the media.

  458. Re:*Leap* by Mirus+Nex · · Score: 1
    Also contrary to popular belief, killing millions of innocent people in Germany did nothing to end the cycle of violence and hate.

    It certainly did stop the Nazis, sure there's a few stragglers around here and there, but for the most part we freed the Jews. If Hitler had his way he would have eliminated every Jew on the planet, would he have stopped there? Certainly not.

    Face it, nobody lives in a Utopian society. There have been and always will be criminals in one form or another.

    The only way to stop OBL's terrorism is to become Arab and give up the American way of life. The US won't do that so the threat of more terrorism will always persist. Even if we did then some other country would get pissed off... Stopping violence won't stop hate, it's not that easy, people still hate today because of previous violence. Unless you could wipe everyone's mind of history and start "from scratch" there will always be hatred. Slavery was abolished in the US over a hundred years ago yet the KKK still exist. Hitler was killed 60 years ago yet there are "Neo Nazis" around. If we kill OBL Al-Qaeda will still be around. You don't actually think that if we peacably eliminated Al-Qaeda and the Taliban that some of them would still hate the US do you? All it takes is 1 terrorist to kill thousands... OBL is the head, we chop it off and the body will slowly decay, sure it won't happen overnight, but not doing anything will just allow it to grow more...

  459. Bambi, Dogs & Wolves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nathan, you still haven't met real evil yet. If you're lucky, you probably won't for a few more years until after you graduate high school and get out "into the real world."

    Some observations:

    Contrary to popular belief, terrorists are not Hitler

    err, well duh. the pope isn't hitler either. they're actually different dudes. pretty amazing, eh?

    nor are they comparable to Hitler

    technically, if one can compare them, they are comperable. that's what the word means. cool, eh? actually, what many people (who have studied more history than 9th grade world history) are referring to is the bizarre love for death these very rare yet terrifyingly dangerous freaks have. i'd suggest you study napoleon, since many french still have a deep love for him (and have forgotten the real man). he commented numerous times that he could not realize pleasure without destroying life. it is an ultimate alpha-male type of maschocism - the realizing of pleasure through mass death.

    interestingly, there are arguments that hitler did not have this drive. he had more of a god-quest, seeing himself as germany personified. his quest for the destruction of germany was required to parallel his own pending destruction - e.g. "with my body goes my country" misidentification. hitler certainly did have more than a few death-questers in his operation though, and he empowered them to fulfill his own drive.

    bin laden shows the god-quest, but he appears more significantly pursue the sexual death-quest drive. he has chosen high casualty targets - as if he's sacrificing thousands to his own alter. certainly a messiah complex at work combined with the bloodiness of a real deviant.

    Take away their reason for terrorizing and they stop.

    Err, wrong! Take away their reason and they'll find another one. They'll apply relativism to their distorted view of reality and create false harms against them, etc. Look at Bin Laden's current foundation. America is evil because:

    o it is based on a merchantilism system, selling things to people
    o it values consumerism to promote economic and social growth
    o it exports this system to the world, seeking a larger market which allows all participants to gain

    and most of all

    o it seeks an intelligent consumer, able to differentiate between quality and garbage, able to reason, able to recognize mysticism and utopianism for the frauds they are

    The previous items are bad enough for his type; the last one is the death of his cause. Parasites require the presence of one of the two false systems in order to allow their host to permit their presence. The US provides a cure from this parasite.

    Hitler was a madman who managed to subvert an entire country.

    Taliban subverted an entire country. Taliban and OBL are very clearly linked financially and operationally.

    As another poster pointed out, McVeigh would not have bombed OKC had we not first murdered the Branch Davidians in Waco.

    No, he probably would have raped little kids or something else equally horrible. QUIT applying rational thought to deviants. Deviants are broken people. They will find whatever reason they want to procure the pleasure they obtain from death and destruction.

    When you do such things to begin a cycle of violence and hate, it does not end until you let it end. People like you, unfortunately, choose to not let it end.

    How about I keep kicking you in the nuts, screwing your sister and stealing your money. You can stand there and "choose it to end." We'll see when it does.

    Does that help? Visualize that again. Imagine I am a very bad person that will keep hurting you because I enjoy it. Worse yet, I will get quickly bored if you accept. I want a response. Remember: OBL and his type have had passive types to deal with for years. OBL grew up with women to beat, children to rape, etc. He grew bored of them. He needs an enemy that will resist in order to get off now.

    Sometimes I think we are really less evolved than most "wild" animals. We certainly act like it.

    If you understand nature for the life-stealing, food-robbing survival base mechanism it is (hint: watch the lion eat bambi and try to explain to bambi to 'stop the cycle'), we are quite indeed evolved.

    In fact, the only less evolved part of our species is the codependent relativist that seeks being consumed by the wolves.

    Don't worry, that's why us dogs are here to protect you.

    1. Re:Bambi, Dogs & Wolves by rossz · · Score: 2

      Damn good response. While I only referred to his posting as "silly arguments" in general, you did an expert job of picking apart every one of his points. To put it another way, you performed an intellectual kicking in the nuts. Of course, since he's a pacifist, he'll probably break out in a Barnie song.

      My recipe for dealing with pacifists requires fava beans and a nice Chianti.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
  460. Re:*Leap* by itachi · · Score: 1

    Having read that article and the quotations that they attribute to that video, I'm wondering how the Telegraph turns those quotations into a confession or an admission of guilt. I mean, I know that there are some differences between the Queen's english and what us filthy americans speak, but I didn't realize that using the words "I" or "we" was a full fledged admission of anything... That's a huge frickin leap if you ask me.

    itachi

  461. Re:*Leap* by itachi · · Score: 1

    History might teach us that with regards to intranational conflict, but not with regards to terrorism. Look at Israel, master of the ultra-violent response to terrorist attacks. Look at Britain, well versed in stomping on terrorists. Look at Spain and the Basques. Violence really doesn't stop terrorism. Appeasement might not either, but that means that policy makers need to come up with a third solution, not keep choosing one of the wrong answers.

    itachi

  462. bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't believe this, do you? Are you that stupid, or just a tasteless troll?
    The United States has been responsible for saving more lives and improving the quality of life for more people than any country in the history of the world.
    You ungrateful fuck. You'd be dead of starvation, disease or war if the U.S. hadn't pulled your ass out of primitive conditions.

  463. Airline security by leonbrooks · · Score: 2

    An Aussie mate of mine opened his laptop on an American aircraft recently, and discovered his large, flat-bladed screwdriver inside the bag. It would make a dandy lethal weapon. A hostess was leaning over his seat to adjust something at the time, and advised him to hide it and say nothing.

    How difficult would it be to hide a couple of pistols in the laptop's docking bays?

    The reason that Israeli airliners don't get hijacked is that if a terrorist stood up in one, he'd be dead in seconds, weapons or not. You can't legislate safety, but you *can* legislate the right to self-defense, and you *can* avoid so drowning your people in a network of complex rules for every breath and every step of their lives that they're aware enough to actually use that right.

    You can also remove a lot of reasons for others to hate you by not throwing your weight around internationally. That reduces terrorism without hamstringing your own people.

    Finally, you need to ask why the government would declare a war when 5000 people die, but not against the tens of thousands of drunk-driver killings that happen in the mainland USA every year.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Airline security by Smiths · · Score: 1

      Wow, and here we thought I thought we had a problem, but now that you explain I see the answers are so obvious...

      The answer is not to be like Israel. Israel is in a constant state of war since its inception with no end in sight, that why people carry around M16s. When we have to reinstate conscription, carry ID cards with our religion and drive on citizen and non citizen roads, then we will be a little like Israel. I really don't want the US to be like Israel. If Israel is the model for safety, do you think anyone in Israel feels safe?

      Not throwing our weight around? Not be the worlds largest economy you mean? Don't compeate in the global economy? Easy enough. When the US gets involved everyone is up in arms, when the US gets out of world affairs, its the same.

      >"Finally, you need to ask why the government >would declare a war when 5000 people die, but >not against the tens of thousands of drunk->driver killings that happen in the mainland USA >every year...."

      I know, I know..

      Because the highjaking of airlines and flying them into buildings are acts of mass murder, and auto related deaths are accidents.

      Adios mio

  464. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and stingers... It's a real industry in the US too.

  465. Poor choice of headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When one sees the headline 'Another plane down in New York', it is impossible not to connect it to the terrorist attacks on September 11th, despite there never having been any evidence to support this. This is poor journalism at best - a news site should do its best to relay the facts only, and leave it to the public to draw their own conclusions from these facts. Furthermore, anyone reading the news story after hearing about it via another source could have been confused into thinking that a SECOND plane had gone down today.

    A much better headline would have been 'Plane Down in New York' or 'Plane Crashes in New York'.

  466. Suitcase nukes by Broccolist · · Score: 2
    If it were easy to smuggle these sorts of things in, presumably we'd have all sorts of things like suitcase nukes and other medium-size arms.

    There was an article in The Economist claiming that terrorist nuclear attacks are a serious threat. After Sept.11, this seems worryingly plausible. If this happens, it will make Sept.11 look like "small beer" as the French say.

  467. Re:What does it prove? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really don't understand why this is marked as flamebait. It seems like a genuine post to me, not even particuarly unreasonable.

    Because other people got the karma and you don't beeeyotch!!!

  468. As Eddie Izzard mentioned by mattbee · · Score: 2

    Shouldn't the phenomenon more fairly be called engine-suck rather than bird-strike? I mean it's not as if flocks of kamikaze birds don their helmets and goggles, and tear towards engine #1 screaming BANZAI! is it?

    --
    Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
  469. No? Where were their tacticians trained? by leonbrooks · · Score: 2
    the radical Islamist point of view won't follow these points

    bin Laden, being a Saudi, would have recieved the bulk of his tactical learning from Western sources and would be accustomed to the ways and mannerisms of US forces.
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:No? Where were their tacticians trained? by nowt · · Score: 2
      bin Laden was trained in Pakistan by the ISI, funded by the U.S. (Soviet-Afghan conflict in 80's which ISI played well to bait/switch Islamist aggression into it's borders (Kashmir, et al.))

      What I'm very curious about now are the true motives of Pakistan in this whole current situation. India has my sympathies.

      --
      A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? - Joshua (Wargames)
  470. Attention Moderators! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of you is obviously a terrorist. If you want evidence, just look at the negative moderation of the above patriot.

    God Bless,
    Anonymous Patriot

  471. Stinger missile? by Kramer747 · · Score: 0
    My old dad says he remembers when the U.S. supplied Osama Bin Laden and Afghanastan with thousands of stinger missiles to stop the Soviets in the late 70's. These were small, easy to use, and only required one nut to fire.

    Wouldn't it be tragic if this crash were a result of our own weapons? It might explain the mysterious "two explosions" we hear about.

  472. Re:Newssites quickly went to light - Dow-Jones fas by funky+womble · · Score: 1

    Ahh! That's how they can do it... The news sites should monitor for sudden drops in the stock markets, and when they occur switch automatically to text-only :-)

  473. +1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting...

  474. 1000th Psot!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cha ching it's numero mil!!!!!!!

  475. You Missed two lines from the article by RedSynapse · · Score: 1
    Reproduction of material from any Salon pages without written permission is strictly prohibited
    Copyright 2001 Salon.com

  476. Stinger Missile Stats by Kramer747 · · Score: 0
    The Federation of American Scientists has some good data on Stinger Missiles along with lots of photos.

    http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/stinger.ht m


    Some tidbits: The missiles have a range of 1 - 8km. They are heat seaking and weigh only 12.5 pounds and are 5 feet by 1 foot in size. The US gave tons of these out like lollipops to Bin Ladin and other Afghanis when they were fighting the Russians for us. How hard would it have been to shoot one of these from miles away off in some boat in the middle of the bay? Just food for thought.

  477. A brief analysis... by jlseagull · · Score: 1
    A mouthpiece for American Airlines came on CNN and stated that the plane's last scheduled biweekly maintenance was the 11th of this month(i.e. yesterday night). Given that they just caught a guy shipping himself to New York in a shipping container with forged airplane mechanic's identifications for a few airports, it looks possible that there was sabotage involved.

    The General Electric CF6-80C2 turbofans in the Airbus that went down are designed to be swapped out easily, without removal of accessory panels - that is, you don't have to take the top shell of the wing off. The mount point, while very solid, is still weaker than the surrounding stucture, and may be vulnerable to a shaped charge triggered by a barometer. As little as 200g of plastique or 300g of TNT composite is sufficient to cut a 25mm alloy mounting bolt or two if shaped properly(more TNT composite is necessary, as you need more filler to hold the shape of the charge). A device of this type could be as small as 50-60 cm^3 and could easily fit in a toolbox.

    In addition, this document details some of the mandatory modifications to this engine, not the least of which is:

    "DGCACF6-80C2/12 FAA AD 95-17-16. AS IN AD & SB. AS IN AD & SB. TO PREVENT COMPRESSOR REAR FRAME(CRF) SEPERATION, WHICH COULD RESULT IN A REJECTED TAKEOFF AND DAMAGE TO THE AIRCRAFT."

    Note that the engine in the parking lot of the gas station on 116th has the rear frame ripped or blown off. It could be that either this disaster represents a failure in a known vulnerable engine component in which case GE is responsible, a failure by American to do required modifications of said engine in which case American and GE are responsible, or an act of deliberate sabotage exploiting a known vulnerable engine component, in which case GE and the saboteur are responsible. However, the internals of this area are extremely hot, even in flight. Therefore, a charge in this area would need to be external - that is, noticable in a preflight walkaround - so it seems unlikely that a charge was used to exploit this weakness.

    Accessing the rear frame area of the engine is harder to do, but is done more often and therefore would attract less attention. However, the level of sabotage neceesary to assure a catastrophic failure at altitude would in all likelihood create that same failure immediately upon preflight engine start.

    In all cases, it seems that people are not looking hard enough at the designer and manufacturer of the CF6-80C2, General Electric.

    --
    'Be always mindful, even when ditch-digging.' --D. T. Suzuki
    1. Re:A brief analysis... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      okay, i'll bite...
      they just caught a guy shipping himself to New York in a shipping container with forged airplane mechanic's identifications for a few airports
      do you have references to back this up?
    2. Re:A brief analysis... by jlseagull · · Score: 1

      here you go

      The destination was Montreal, I believe. Misremembered it. Thanks for pointing that out.

      --
      'Be always mindful, even when ditch-digging.' --D. T. Suzuki
  478. Who wants to bet? -- FUEL DUMP by variable26 · · Score: 1

    The "fuel dump" was total bollocks?

    The plane broke apart and there was NO time to dump fuel... the fuel was 'dumped' because there was a large explosion and the tanks were ruptured.

  479. You pathetic moron... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spending money on one thing, instead of on another thing, can't help or hurt the economy. We can't get richer just by buying things from each other.

    Stocks are investments. When you invest money, you are funding production. It may seem too abstract for you to wrap your defective little brain around, but here's a simple example at the extreme: when stock prices drop below a certain level, it makes sense to buy the company just to sell off its easily-scrapped assets. So a productive automobile manufacturer, for example, might get broken up, its employees fired, its expensive specialized equipment melted down for scrap, its building torn down to sell as undeveloped land, all wasted, recycled at pennies on the dollar, because its stock price drops too far out of step with its productivity.

    You think a stock crash isn't harmful to the economy? Picture that happening to most businesses. Factories being dismantled, skilled workers sitting idle, shortages of everything and no income to pay for it anyway. Not for lack of resources, but from a general misallocation of resources.

    That's the key: efficient allocation of resources. That's the very definition of economy, and that's what markets are for. When the markets fail, everything else goes down with them.

    Besides, the point was that it's profitable to buy during a panic. You at least understand profit, right? The problem is that people feel bad about profiting from disaster, and they shouldn't. Not when it helps prevent another disaster.

    1. Re:You pathetic moron... by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      ---Stocks are investments. When you invest money, you are funding production.---

      Yes, but you apparently forgot that buying stocks is not the only way that production is funded, and that money not used to buy stocks doesn't just vanish into smoke. You can't tell a story about one part of the economy, and simply ignore the rest. If you want to prove to me or anyone that you have a clue, you need to suggest an economic _model_ of how the economy works, and show how falling stock prices contribute to net social loss of surplus.

      ---It may seem too abstract for you to wrap your defective little brain around, but here's a simple example at the extreme: when stock prices drop below a certain level, it makes sense to buy the company just to sell off its easily-scrapped assets.----

      When the assests of one company are sold to another, society is neither better or worse off. No one is going to do something as silly as scrap productive assests. If they are productive, they will be put to use. If not, not, and rightly so. Your story simply doesn't make any sense.

      ---That's the key: efficient allocation of resources. That's the very definition of economy, and that's what markets are for. When the markets fail, everything else goes down with them.---

      You haven't made a case for why falling stock prices = markets failing. And you certainly haven't made a case that not buying stocks = misallocation of resources. Where do you think the money that isn't used to buy stock DOES go? To the moon? People are quite justified, for instance, in supposing that widespread disaster in the airline industry means that the industry as a whole will be less profitable than it otherwise woul have been. Simply buying it's stock doesn't make the bussiness any more profitable.
      Economists have a long list of ways that markets can fail, but low stock prices isn't one of them. Sometimes, lower prices are justified, and it's a better investment to buy other things.

  480. Smoke 'em out of there holes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, I couldn't resist.

  481. "Redundant"? How is the 1st reply "redundant"? by Kasreyn · · Score: 2

    What kind of funky, retard-grade crack are moderators smoking these days, anyway?

    If you wanted to mod him down, "overrated" would be a more logical reason. It's hard to be redundant when the comment you're posting is the first comment on the story. Maybe if moderators would stop reading at "highest rated first"...

    -Kasreyn

    --
    Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger /. flamers since 1999.
  482. Slashdot-proof news medium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I first read about the plane crash when it was mirrored in a hand-written poster in a computer games shop. Unlikely to get slashdotted by virtue of being located in a backwater of the shopping centre and written in a large font, but then the site went down until tomorrow morning...

  483. This AD does NOT currently ground this plane type by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This AD may and may not have been taken care of on this plane- really there's no way to know without access to the logs.

    Saying that noncompliance with this AD grounds this plane after the effective date indicates that the AD and applicable regs are not fully understood. Clearly, 18 months are allowed from the effective date of 09-10-01 to complete this modification. This does *not* ground this plane type until the 18 month window for compliance closes.

    -Excerpt from AD-

    (a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the electrical connectors to the fuel sensors by the installation of new connectors and new sensors
    ...
    Effective Date

    (e) This amendment becomes effective on September 10, 2001.

    -end excerpt-

    Please do not post inflammatory remarks without some minimal fact mining.

    peace

  484. This seems like old-hat now.. by defile · · Score: 2

    I live in Queens, about 8-9 miles from the crash site. As opposed to the 14-15 miles from the WTC.

    I just got an Iguana, and was playing with him all morning. We turned the TV on at around noon to see the news. I soaked it in for about 20 minutes, went "meh" and turned it off. People on IRC across the country were discussing it for hours.

    It's interesting that this didn't even rile me, what with all of the other things I've had happen to me the past few months. I suppose in a few weeks, I'll think about all of the people that died and start crying.

    Terrorists winning? Only if apathy is their goal.

  485. Possibly caused by sabotage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My dad, who flies for the airline (and who fortunately was not flying on that plane, though he flies 757s/767s and not A300s), never has anything good to say about JFK airport. That airport has very high turnover, disgruntled and underpaid employees, and very little training for those who are hired. 8 times out of 10 when he goes there (he tries his best to avoid it when doing trip bidding), the ground crew manages to mess something up, though it's usually some water pressurization thing that, when the ground crew forces some valve into the wrong position, prevents running water from working and thus inconveniencing the passengers due to no water. If a terrorist got a job there, they could have done some really, really bad things :-( (hopefully someone noticed something in this hightened age of air travel..). I hope that the airline is investigating this possibility.. (they probably are). On the BBC, they said that on another airplane, a guy was subdued on an airplane near Washington Dulles after trying to get into the flight deck (politically correct term for 'cockpit'). This tidbit was on the BBC (and I didn't have any connection problems this morning or during the day, unlike CNN. CNN sucks.. Go to the BBC :-). Now they should see if Osama tried to short the stocks again.. (I hope they froze all of his assets by now). I'm thinking that either the al Queda network is a one-trick pony (e.g., trying to do NY and Washington again), or copy-cat terrorist organizations might have tried to pull another disaster (my God, several hundred people died! This is a horrible tragedy :-(. It's possible that this is being downplayed to prevent further panic until they find out more information.. (my $0.02...)

  486. French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Airbus A-300. That's what happens when you allow the French to build planes.

    1. Re:French by Blowit · · Score: 1

      I got to say that I must agree with him. It is really not the Frenchie's fault but the actual design of the plane itself. Has anyone ever flown in one? It feels like the plane would fall apart.

      I would honestly like to see the airlines bring back/increase the amount of 747s (or atleast the new 777s) in their fleet.

      --
      *Headline News* censorship shuts down the Internet! More at 6PM!
  487. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Smash the state(s) that support terrorists and the danger to America is greatly reduced"

    The US was supporting the taliban this year.

    But that just gets swept under the carpet.

  488. Some of you people's ignorance astounds me. by Silverwolf0 · · Score: 1

    For such a great place, it is absulotly bafling to me that we can have people on here who think we should kill Islam because it is the source of all world troubles. And others hailing the Idea of dropping nukes on a country where there are bound to not even hit a damn terrorist, but rather kill tens-of thousands of innocent people!!! How the hell do you people live with yourselves?

    "You're philosophy won't save lives, a nuke will" How in God's name is a weapon of mass destruction dropped on a country where most of the people are starving anyway help stop radicals in America that are destroying things????

    How exactly do you people figure you are better than any of these terrorists? By killing thousands of people cause you are pissed? Next time, try thinking for about 40 seconds about who you are instead of the people you hate.

    --
    You Don't have to burn books to destroy a culture, you just have to get people to stop reading them. Ray Bradbury
  489. Re:*Leap* by arkanes · · Score: 1
    Actually, there is an excellent argument against prisons, at least in thier current form - it's provable that, as a rule, jail sentences do NOT reduce crime, they are ineffective as a deterent, and convicted criminals have a tendency to commit further crimes.

    Not saying that we should just leave criminals alone, or that we should ignore terrorist attacks, but the methods we use, in the one case a PROVEN to not work as desired, and in the second case, are likely to not work as desired. Therefore, we need to come up with different solutions.

    News flash - bombing Afghanistan isn't gonna make your daughter any safer. It might make you FEEL safer, but it won't make terrorism from there go away.

  490. You are 100% wrong on this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is the opposite. On large airliners, the engines are designed with shear bolts that will purposefully fail with the right amount of torque to prevent them from transfering said torque to the wing and tearing the wing off the plane.

  491. WTF? by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    Then why are we attacking Afghanistan, when most of the al-Quadians (that might be correct...) are Saudis?
    BECAUSE THEY ARE IN AFGHANISTAN! I mean, wtf? Do you suppose we should attack their homeland? A nation that has thoroughly denounced Bin Laden and wants to execute him? That would be like Nuking Italy to get at the Mafia, like attacking Germany to stop neo-Nazism, Attacking Columbia to stop street dealers... oh wait... But you get the picture. Al-Queda members (the correct term) are in Afghanistan. They are supported by the Taliban which we claim as an enemy.

    To be honest, I don't give two shits about Al-Queda or whatever, but I've wanted to see the Taliban go straight to hell since long before sept11th. And now that they are, I couldn't be happier.

    They kill more people in public executions each year then we ever will.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  492. When you can't attack someone's ideas.... by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    attack their spelling.

    You're pointing out of my spelling error has thoroughly routed my argument. Congratulations, clearly you have won, and displayed a superior intellect.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  493. Right you are! by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    Musta been thinking 1620 meters per mile, got it backwards. Duh.

    Well, it's still way too damned big to be practical.

    1. Re:Right you are! by doubtme · · Score: 1
      Well, it's still way too damned big to be practical.

      I ain't gonna try arguing with you there! :)

      --

      There's no $$$ in 'team'...
      www..--..net - for incisive, w
  494. CNN Summary by dszd0g · · Score: 1

    I like the CNN summary:

    "260 were on airliner, six to nine missing on ground; 265 bodies recovered"

    --
    This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
  495. Or more sabotage by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    Engine gets major saftey overhaul. Engine blowes the fuck up 3 minutes of active use afterwards. If there was a major overhaul of the engine, i'd bet on sabotage, to be honest.

    fortunetly, from what I've heard it was just a spot-check yesterday.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  496. Chicken gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like a spud gun, but you shoot birds out of it. A shot of hair-spray and a click of the bbq ignitor... and *BOOOM!*

  497. Bushed - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The spin put on this 'accident' will be a beauty. no mater how they spin it - the public will be on edge. The bit about dumping fuel does not seem normal.
    AA is in trouble and cashflow negative, and is based in bushes home state.
    To say terrorist is bad
    to say bomb or unexplained is bad
    and I dont think airbus will be impressed with negative implications - least not when the recorders are in tact.
    So far, no real information has come to light, other than 24 hours is plenty to analyse the tapes and make a statement. The longer the delay - the more likely folk will avoid NY flights - insurance actuarys would say the risk is on the east coast.

  498. Prediction -- Terrorist Activity by DumbSwede · · Score: 1
    It is now close to midnight, about 15 hours past the crash of flight 587, and I have flip flopped a few times in my opinion as to the probable cause. When I saw the images this morning I thought terrorist attack, later they indicated no terrorist evidence, and I leaned toward accident. Sometime before noon, CNN indicated a credible report of an explosion, I was back to thinking terrorist. An hour after that, the credible report disappears and the rest of the day evidence piles in indicating accident -- I briefly swing back to thinking accident. By about 3pm I change my mind again, this time not because there is any new evidence, and I am ready to log my prediction - terrorist action.

    I saw slashdot.org's posting when it only had 20 entries, but had nothing new to add. Now it has over a thousand postings, and there is little chance I will be read by anyone but the most dedicated or zealous of terrorist news followers. Still I am going to record my thoughts, mostly for potential told-you-so value.

    Planes do crash accidentally, but there is a near coincident of date, and a coincidence of location to consider. Any plane crashing in the US is going to initially be under suspicion of terrorist activity, but President Bush has taken to attach significance to the date of 11-11-01 as the 2 month Anniversary of 9-11. 11-12-01 has significance as Veteran's Day, and as the closest weekday to 11-11-01. Add to this New York as the location, and I swing back to terrorist activity as the probable cause.

    Yes this is all circumstantial evidence, but to be honest, I like many other Americans have been waiting for the other shoe to drop, and even if this is terrorist activity, it is mild compared to what has been threatened. With what has been learned about sloppy airport security, I'm surprised there have not been more airline incidents in the last two months.

    While we are more carefully screening carry-on baggage, I am of the impression we are not screening all checked baggage. It might also be that we mix freight cargo with passenger cargo (maybe some well-informed person could tell us if this is true of not), thus an altimetrically triggered bomb could bring down an airplane with only having been air freighted by someone.

    I'm not sure why there seems to be so much effort exerted to push the accident theory for flight 587. It may well be an accident, but it seems like the news media are pushing to have the public believe accident "until proven otherwise" (I suppose to prevent panic). Personally, I think we should assume "terrorist incident" until proven otherwise. Because the latter will lead to a tightening of security that might prevent another downed planed in the near term.

  499. US media black out? by Zorgoth · · Score: 1

    I work in Germany and while driving home yesterday I heard something on the radio to the effect of "Airbus catastrophe in Queens". (my German isn't great) I raced home and turned on trusty CNN international, and saw...the global weather report. I waited for the next set of stories to start and was treated more stories of reporter heroics in Afghanistan. I felt relieved and had myself a beer, and thought that I really had to work on my German if I managed to misinterpret things that badly. A while later, flipping through the channels, I saw the French news with a live reports on the newest New York inferno. BBC had live coverage and so did 3 German channels. I went back to CNN and eventually they had a brief 2 minute blurb on the crash. They did not even put up the hotline number for victims families to call. (BCC did) I don't know what it was like in the US, but I get the feeling that the Government told the Media not to make a big deal about this. Think about the last big airline crash in the US (pre-Sept 11. ), and remember the kind of coverage that it got. It is fine trying to keep up the people's spirits and moral, but this is just stupid. Has CNN just lost it, or are we losing our "free press"?

    --
    -------------------------------END--COMMUNICATION- --------------------------
  500. Re:Let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HUH? How the fuck is this a troll.. You stupid american moderators really should get a fucking clue.

  501. So now.. by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    .. In this time, i think people of all races', colours and backgrounds should be uniting together, and, instead of fighting, laydown their arms, and their hatred of each-other, stop their predudice and should stand and ask the question:

    "Is Bush and the entire American government a bunch of incompetant red-neck crack sniffers?, or is it just me"

    and should reply their question with:

    "Yes, yes they are. And we must stop our fighting and hatred for eachother, and go and kill Bush and the Government, 'cos, lets face it, this is all their fault."

    And then we could have a good ol' fashond linchmob, Texas style, _or_ even better, we could hand said government over to the Taliban (requesting tv viewing rights ofcourse).

    If i was incharge of airline safety/security i would have resigned long time ago lol...

    In other news: A car has crashed in downtown NY, the car, travelling at 3 mph, hit the bumber of another car infront, a 5 block area has been cordened off, but police say they dont think it was the work of terrorists.

    oh, am i gonna get modded down for this...

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  502. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Itachi, history might teach you better if you study it directly, not recall what others have told you incorrectly.

    Look at Israel, master of the ultra-violent response to terrorist attacks.

    Ultra violent? Certainly not in recent years; Israel has been castrated and will soon be inable to defend itself if the course does not change.

    30+ years ago, Israel was effective. When threatened, they provided decisive action that neutralized their enemies. The proof of the correctness of this choice (and the substantiation that it is the right choice today) is that Israel still exists. That Iraqi nuclear reactors did not produce bombs that blew up European and American cities in the past 10 years is your evidence that they were able to seek the right response before.

    Look at Syria, master of real violence and order-of-magnitude response. You want to complain about the government? Let's just flatten your city. Anyone else wish to complain? No?

    Israel's a proud product of Amerieuro leftist incrimentalism that caused Vietnam, Afghanistan (thanks Britain) and numerous other failures.

    Look at Britain, well versed in stomping on terrorists.

    Nope. Look at Britain, the founder of ineffective incrementalism. Had an empire and couldn't keep it. Got soft. Wouldn't sacrifice more than its subjects. Rotted to the core. Now it's a pathetic excuse for a former empire.

    Look at Spain and the Basques. Violence really doesn't stop terrorism.

    Another former empire that is rotted to the core, inable to provide a real response to problems.

    You may not like it, but China, Iraq, Syria and other nations have been very effective in terminating any resistance. While Americans may find this hard to comprehend, they had either choose to treat its opponents with this decisiveness, or accept being ruled by them.

    Appeasement might not either, but that means that policy makers need to come up with a third solution

    and that is... ??? you're obviously a good little mystic, disparaging real solutions as "mean" and wishing for the unknown. go back to your gisha girls and fantasys of when your people had real men.

    If I have a gun and you have a sandwich, I have a gun and a sandwich.

  503. Re:*Leap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is quite possibly the most idiotic statement I've ever read in my life.

    I absolutely agree. In fact, its time we start to hold people accountable for these decisions. Yes, you have free speech. But that is not the same thing as unaccountable speech.

    You have free will as well. You're free to use that free will and walk into a bank and stick it up. Are you able to tell the judge that you should not be jailed because you were exercising your free will?

    Free speech like this above is what permitted Hitler's rise, for instance. (Read Hitler's Willing Executioners as a dry but factual reference). Passive support and emotional claims like this one sent cues to the population that the cause was a popular one, and subsequently empowered the Reich to exterminate millions.

    Every German that gave support, even through little comments like this or through inaction, are as guilty as the senior party members.

    I think it's time for a new strategy.

    Yes, it is. We need to make it clear to the governments that we expect the punishment of people like this poster. Yes, let him speak and let him act, but speak or act against us and you'll pay.

    And if the government does not punish, we will hold them accountable for harboring these types.

  504. Leap of faith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jail sentences do NOT reduce crime

    wow arkanes, you actually allow yourself to think this way? frightening.

    what you allege here is that there apparently is a mystic force that protects all criminals from being caught, right up until they decide to quit crime. then, the police nab them because the mystic crime force field collapses and they are no longer invisible.

    that must be the logic. otherwise, the criminals would not have been done with their crime sprees, and intercepting them and putting them in jail would reduce crime.

    so how does this mystic force field thing work? what proof do you have of it? can we confirm that every killer, rapist, etc. out there was done with crime right before they got caught, and therefore were not stopped from more crime?

    radical view, arkanes. you've finally got jonkatz beat on this wacked view.

    they are ineffective as a deterent

    if this is true (which most criminal science evidence shows otherwise), does it matter? let's take your average child killer. since i don't believe your mystic force field exists, nabbing him results in children who aren't hurt/killed. isn't that good enough for you? or do you like the effects of crime?

    and convicted criminals have a tendency to commit further crimes

    you sound like a deviant making threats to society ("bwahaha, you can put me in the pen, but i'll do it again. so there!"). all we have to do to solve for this problem, should it exist, is not let them out, or better yet, give them the permanent incarceration.... fry em.

    News flash - bombing Afghanistan isn't gonna make your daughter any safer.

    actually it will, but you bring up a very critical point: we still need to deal with the thought terrorists within.

    accountability is coming!

    1. Re:Leap of faith by arkanes · · Score: 1

      I suppose I should have made myself more clear for the braindead among us. Jail sentences do not reduce crime, by any signifigant amount, because WHEN THEY ARE RELEASED, most former convicts then continue to commit crimes. An alternative would be life or death sentences, and it's true that getting rid of parole, early release, and any jail sentence less than 30 years probably WOULD reduce crime, but you don't hear a whole lot of arguments in that case. Most criminals who serve time are repeat offenders. If jail time reduced crime, then the opposite would be true.
      I'm wondering what exactly you think bombing Afghanistan will do to make your daughter any safer, other than in the pedantic sense that every person who is killed is one less person that might someday be a terrorist, by which argument we may as well nuke china and india and take out the bulk of the world population right there.

  505. Get used to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A serious inquiry deserves a serious response:

    Why do so many people seem to think that not attacking Afghanistan means "doing nothing"?

    It is not "doing nothing" - and hopefully persons of reason are not assessing your proposed solution as such. This would be misdirection and leads the discussion down the wrong path.

    Instead, those most critical of these proposals focus on the fact that the use of force is what is required, and anything that does not incorporate force does not accomplish the job.

    Understand: the game has been escalated. Food packages, Red Cross trucks, etc. were tossed aside on Sept 11. This was OBL and the Taliban's intent.

    Study the strategy of war, for instance. The United States has a significant interest in playing a continuing game. The status quo is in our favor. Our intelligent opponents recognize this and work to pursue an end game.

    The game got escalated. Consider it a sort of duel - we were playing with dollar bills like a good game of poker, and the Islamic fundamentalists pulled a gun. Unless you possess a winning hand (a better gun), you fold and concede to their demands. Those are the only options.

    We have alot of options besides engaging in inapropriate military action.

    You're right. We are using appropriate military action. (Look at that: you had it in you all along. The answers are right at your fingertips!)

    Remember: ME=GUN, YOU=HAM SANDWICH. What's your option?

    Why inapropriate? Donald Rumsfeld said that we're unlikely to catch Bin Laden.

    Er... complete the quote please. Taking things out of syntax is poor form and will get you laughed out of most crowds that are smarter than your average jr. high clique.

    Rumsfeld implied that OBL is unlikely to allow himself to be caught, should he be located, and/or we are unlikely to allow him to be brought in alive. OBL is not going to be put in front of cameras on a United Nations court. He will rather expire, by his hands our ours.

    Many members of the Taliban are no longer in the Taliban and will never be caught.

    Ever hear of former Nazis in Argentina? Better yet, Nazis in the US and Germany? No shortage of them. Did Nazism come back 10 years later? Nope. Lost its support system.

    Besides all of these peopl already invaded Afghanistan. Neither Bin Laden nor the Taliban are Afghani.

    What kind of stupid comment is this? Taliban are not Afghani? Were have you been? They ARE the Afghan government (well, for the next five minutes). Seriously, you have GOT to think this stuff through and check your facts before you post. You even give relativists a bad name.

    We are bombing innocent civilians who happened to have the misfortune of being invaded by people who attacked the US as well.

    Welcome to the Real Fscking World.

    Look, I'm being hard on you - but somebody needs to kick you in the shins and help you grow up. You won't survive high school with this kind of attitude.

  506. Frusterbating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A few questions for Swordboy and your friends -

    Why can't you people spell?

    Why can't you people get a clue?

    Why are you defending killers? Your types hated the Taliban when they blew up those pretty ancient Buddas, but once they killed Americans and blew up our skyscrapers and smashed our planes, you defend them?

    Why are you afraid of your own shadow?

    Why do you care what "other people" think about Americans defending our country when it is attacked?

    Who are these very important "other people"? Why do you subordinate yourself to their interest?

    How is the "Nothern (sic) Alliance" the same as the Taliban? If they're the same, why are they at war?

    What the hell does Michigan have to do with the situation?

    What is a "sove"?

    Are you one of those sickos that hates confrontation so much that you'll end up buying a bag of guns and targeting all the jocks at your high school?

    What will it take to help you see the light?

    What will it take to get you to spellcheck your posts first?

  507. Debunking Feelgoodism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to deal with some false solutions:

    Well, we could stop bending over and grabbing our ankles to protect the interests of big business for starters.

    Fine. Quit buying their stuff. Next?

    Oh wait, what, that's not good enough? You want to force other people to have to accept your ban on big business? Your choice isn't enough?

    It really is frustrating to see how hard it is for you guys. Hating the world for not following your warped path. Getting panties bunched watching folks go to Walmart, snack at McDonalds, etc.

    Why can't you let each human be accountable for his/herself? Or are you really a closet totalitarianist like some of the theories indicate?

    In a sense, maybe I'm the fool. You're clearly demonstrating the same behavior that Bin Laden and his follows pursue: forcing your will on others. Perhaps this is why you defend his type so aggressively.

    one that is there to watchdog the industry. No more "cost-benefit analysis" on security, at least, not driven by shareholders

    It's been said over and over again but I see you're still struggling to get it: Europe tried this. Government security let the bad guys in (it did here too - all those companies did exactly what the Feds told them to). Private firms have competition built into the system and do a better job in Europe.

    Also, where's your glorious goverment in this postal mess? Why did they let the Anthrax through? Why didn't they have irradiation devices at every single post office in the country? Don't tell me... THE GOVERNMENT DID A COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS ON IT? Gasp!

    Now for the fun:

    Dear Airlines:
    Sorry, you can't protect us
    from things the government never anticipated, we want our elected officials like Clinton, Condit, Frank and other role models to do that, thank you very much.

    Excellent. As if the postal disgrace wasn't enough evidence.

    Of course, the real problem is that we do unpopular actions worldwide.

    Tell me, your confused blathering makes you real unpopular with intelligent people. Does that give us the right to deal with you in Bin Laden's manner? How about we just institute public caning to help guide some of our weaker citizens?

    According to your reasoning, this approach is justified.

    We can't make everyone happy, but I don't think we've had a consistent foreign policy since the end of the Cold War

    Ah. Democracy sucks. We haven't had a consistent administration since the end of the Cold War. Does it surprise you that different administrations have different policies?

    We need to stop supporting governments that don't fit American ideals

    So stop sending food? Help? Sorry, your government is mean - you just have to die.

    simply to protect our economic interests (sorry, Saudi Arabia!

    There's the parallel. You hate big business, but have to buy their products every day. You hate countries like Saudi Arabia, but probably drive a car and use their oil.

    You really need to make a choice and quit lying to yourself: become a hermit and follow your principles, or learn that buying a product does not mean you fully endorse their belief system.

    We need to take a stand to Israel and withdraw support until they really, truly pull out of the West Bank (sorry, big Jewish lobby!).

    No, we need to quit threatening them and let them sink or swim.

    This means signing treaties to submit to the decisions of world justice

    This would be a violation of the contract this country is based on. For a political leader or a citizen to advocate this is to declare opposition to the laws of the US. Some call it treason, but that is such a distasteful word.

    Look. Instead of neutering the US, leave. Our constitution is quite clear and is a contract with all who live here. You obviously value some other order where you can push people around. I'd suggest you move to Britain. They've done a great job neutering the country, feeling guilty about not being loved by others, etc. You'll fit right in there. Of course, Canada's on their way there already and they're a cheaper airfare.

    The day of reason is coming.

    1. Re:Debunking Feelgoodism by shani · · Score: 1
      Well, we could stop bending over and grabbing our ankles to protect the interests of big business for starters.

      Fine. Quit buying their stuff. Next?

      Oh wait, what, that's not good enough? You want to force other people to have to accept your ban on big business? Your choice isn't enough?

      And if I choose not to spend billions on a bailout of the inefficient airline industry? It's not capitalism that I am opposed to, it is when the government spends tax dollars propping up allegedly for-profit businesses, and then people like you seem to think that if I oppose this that I'm forcing some sort of consumer choice down your throat. Get over your bad self.

      Of course, the real problem is that we do unpopular actions worldwide.

      Tell me, your confused blathering makes you real unpopular with intelligent people. Does that give us the right to deal with you in Bin Laden's manner? How about we just institute public caning to help guide some of our weaker citizens?

      According to your reasoning, this approach is justified.

      Huh? My reasoning is this: if you don't care what people think about you, don't be surprised if they don't like you. My point is not that killing is justified - that's your point. Rather I hold that one cannot defeat hatred with violence, and that the problem is hatred.

      Ironically, I'm sure you would be happy to cane me. I fear you may have a lot in common with Osama. :(

      simply to protect our economic interests (sorry, Saudi Arabia!

      There's the parallel. You hate big business, but have to buy their products every day. You hate countries like Saudi Arabia, but probably drive a car and use their oil.

      You really need to make a choice and quit lying to yourself: become a hermit and follow your principles, or learn that buying a product does not mean you fully endorse their belief system.

      Actually, I don't own a car. I use public transportation. I recycle. I don't eat meat. I'm not sure why you think I should be a hermit, but I do follow my principles, thanks.

      This means signing treaties to submit to the decisions of world justice

      This would be a violation of the contract this country is based on. For a political leader or a citizen to advocate this is to declare opposition to the laws of the US. Some call it treason, but that is such a distasteful word.

      I assume this means that you think that we should pull out of the GATT? Oops - that's about free trade, so it must be a good thing.

      The U.S. Military already has a separate justice system, not subject to civilian rules. Since we already have strict guidelines forbidding human rights abuses by our soldiers, why would it matter if we signed a treaty saying we won't tolerate that? We already agree to hand over civilians to foreign justice, and yet for some reason that's not treason!

      The U.S. has no problems dragging foreign leaders out of their countries and taking them to trial (admittedly, real scum bags, but we're talking about princples here, right?). Why is it okay to do unto others but not vice versa? Might makes right?

      Look. Instead of neutering the US, leave. Our constitution is quite clear and is a contract with all who live here. You obviously value some other order where you can push people around. I'd suggest you move to Britain. They've done a great job neutering the country, feeling guilty about not being loved by others, etc. You'll fit right in there. Of course, Canada's on their way there already and they're a cheaper airfare.

      All because I think the U.S. should play by the same rules as everybody else doesn't mean that I should have to leave.

      I don't want the U.S. neutered, I want it to pursue measures that will help move towards genuine, long term peace. Continuing an arrogant, narrowly self-interested foreign agenda won't do it, not matter how much you spend on ABM techology.

  508. 2 possibilities by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    1. It was a terrorist attack. That means airport security still sux, and I'm not going on a plane until that changes.

    2. It was an accident. That means airport maintaince sux, and I'm not going on a plane until that changes.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  509. Well, no, they're generally NOT accidents by leonbrooks · · Score: 2
    the highjaking of airlines and flying them into buildings are acts of mass murder, and auto related deaths are accidents.

    Very few people get drunk accidentally, even fewer drive cars accidentally.

    Drink-driving is gross negligence, and when you drink, drive and kill someone it's absolutely, unquestionably your fault that they died. You took every step on the road to their death. You killed them. You trundle past policemen, knowing you're doing wrong and hoping that they'll not notice you, as did bin Laden's hijackers. It's no different in principle, only in scale.

    A number of countries with a more pragmatic attitude to such things have discovered that shooting repeat-offense drink drivers out of hand is immensely profitable in terms of lives not lost. Perhaps America should do the same?

    .

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  510. Re:*Leap* by Daengbo · · Score: 0

    I read it in Time, Asia edition (copy, not web)