Air Force One Flyby Causes Brief Panic In NYC

pdclarry writes "A Boeing 747 that serves as an Air Force One backup and two F-16 fighters escorting it caused a brief panic among office workers at the World Financial Center in lower Manhattan this morning, as large numbers evacuated the buildings. The incident was also spurred evacuations in Jersey City across the Hudson River from Manhattan."

Comments

We are a bunch

[Anonymous Coward]

of fuckin' wussy people.

"HOLY COW! Here comes a plane flying near our wonderful New York City! It looks like it is going to hit a building! We better run for it!"

Come on!

Re:We are a bunch

[jabithew]

Insightful? This and the GP? Really? How many people here would stay somewhere if they thought they were reasonably likely to die there?

There's a couple of words for a person who does that. One is 'firefighter'. The others are less noble.

I'm not an 'afraid citizen', I'm just aware that there's no reward for bearing unnecessary risk.

Re:We are a bunch

[Red Flayer]

As someone who was in lower Manhattan the last time a jetliner flew very low... you can bet your bottom dollar I'd be out of my building and on my way home (to NJ) if I saw that.

I wasn't in much personal danger on 9/11 (merely took the Path under the WTC), but I'll tell you that it really *SUCKED* to wait in line for hours and hours to catch a ferry across the Hudson without any means to contact my family (cell service was impossible to get).

Next time that shit happens, I'm first in line at the ferry (excepting the elderly, the very young, and the preggers).

Re:We are a bunch

[antibryce]

it was a 747 flying at under 1,000 feet with two military escorts. If I saw that, and I worked where the bulk of the 9/11 dead are still buried I'd feel some panic as well.

It's pathetic how many on here are making fun of these people. Just to give you an idea of how low that is, 1,000 feet is roughly 1/2 the total height of the WTC twin towers.

Re:We are a bunch

[plague3106]

How many people here would stay somewhere if they thought they were reasonably likely to die there?

There are low flying planes all the time. It's not a reason to panic, and no reasonable person would believe they were likely to die there. Instead, we have unreasonable people panicing over an unreasonable fear. You're still more likely to be eaten by a shark than you are to die in another plane crashing into a building.

Re:We are a bunch

[diskis]

Yes, because we all know that terrorists like to do some sightseeing before crashing their plane.

Moron.

Re:We are a bunch

[R2.0]

"of fuckin' wussy people."

- 3 planeloads of people let 5 men armed with hand tools take over airplanes - because that's what they've been told to do. As soon as the 4th planeload of people find out how they've been lied to, they take action and save many more lives.

- Hundreds of students cower under desks waiting be rescued from 1 man with 2 handguns, and the only person to do ANYTHING is an octogenarian who gets killed for his efforts to protect the strong, healthy, 18-22 year old "adults" hiding in fear. The most played interview is of a young man who was simply waiting to die. He is called "heroic".

- A man starts shooting in an immigrant center, and police take 45 minutes to enter the building, while people hide like scared rabbits waiting to be rescued. The police state that their response time was irrelevant - the victims would have died anyway.

Oh yes, we have reached the point where helplessness is considered noble, where former soldiers are considered security risks because the government trained them to kill, and the people whose "job" it is to protect us simply shrug their shoulders and pick up the bodies.

Wussies doesn't really cover it.

Re:We are a bunch

[jabithew]

There are low flying planes all the time. They're just not normally flanked by a pair of F-15s over Manhatten.

Re:We are a bunch

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Not only that, but one would think that two F16s would be more then enough to put an end to it if the plane was actually overrun with terrorists and heading for some tall building...

Re:We are a bunch

[peragrin]

um it has two military escorts. if your afraid of a plane already being escorted by the military then you really need a clue. The planes that did attack the trade center didn't have escorts.

it is a deduction worthy of sherlock holmes apparently.

Re:We are a bunch

[INT_QRK]

R2.0: Out-freeking-standing post. I'd mod you up if I could.

Re:We are a bunch

[tholomyes]

Were the planes holding hands? I would hazard to guess that "two military planes escorting a third" would look fairly similar to "two military planes in close pursuit of a third", particularly to the untrained eye, Sherlock.

Re:We are a bunch

[BikeHelmet]

Isn't it a good thing the fighters were there?

Shouldn't people be more worried about low flying planes without them?

Re:We are a bunch

[C0C0C0]

+5, brother. We are raising a nation of wimps. I'm imagining this is what Rome was like in the final years, as the frontier crumbled and the barbarians road unmolested through Italy.

Re:We are a bunch

[jabithew]

It's like when you walk into a Tube station and see ten of the Met's finest standing there. In theory you ought to feel safer, but in practice you wonder what's happening that you don't know about.

Until it becomes the norm for planes to be flanked by fighters, seeing them is just going to make people worried.

Re:We are a bunch

[Diagoras]

Most people become terrified upon entering situations where both death and helplessness are present, like being fired at by an individual with a gun when you have none. This is nothing to be ashamed of, this is just being human. You might be a superman capable of charging across the room and kung-fuing the gun out of a madman's hand, and I'm glad for you that you are, but don't heap disdain on those that have frozen in such situations.

Re:We are a bunch

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

This is nothing to be ashamed of

Nor is it anything to be proud of or held as an example of heroic behaviour.

Re:We are a bunch

[joshamania]

For those of you who liked the above post and haven't already, go out and get yourself a copy of Atlas Shrugged. I guarantee if you're a reader you'll like it.

And to the weaksause who said "most people become blahblahblah where both death and helplessness blah blah etc..."...

A situation you enter might be dangerous, but you bring your own helplessness with you, it isn't already there.

Re:We are a bunch

[cubiclegangsta]

How many people here would stay somewhere if they thought they were reasonably likely to die there?

Yeah, seriously. Those people did not necessarily "over-react". They are using previous incidents as evidence and it is a reasonable assumption (considering the fighter escorts) that something "bad" may have been unfolding.

For the folks that scream that these people are weak-minded sheep, you're nothing more than the polarized opposite of those who spread the FUD. I don't argue that FUD is bullshit, but *sometimes* there is good reason to be afraid.

And lastly, the way you call "sheep" on these people makes me think you've never been in a potentially life-threatening situation. That, or your damned green vulcan blood hinders your instinct to preserve yourself.

Take note: There is no fucking respawn if you die.

Re:We are a bunch

[Anonymous Coward]

Its been almost 8 years, actually. Get over it.

Re:We are a bunch

[riker1384]

There's plenty of reason to fear a plane that has military escorts, if the plane is over Manhattan. An air-to-air missile cannot vaporize a 747. If it was trying to do a kamikaze and they shot it down over Manhattan, it would simply crash in a slightly different place than it was aiming for.

Re:We are a bunch

[danbert8]

2 complaints...

1st: Architects don't design buildings for strength... They design buildings for art and function. Civil engineers design a building for the loads applied to it.

2nd: In no way do civil engineers design for plane impact loads. I'm not saying a building wasn't designed to handle loads that a plane might put on a building, but the lateral loads that a civil engineer takes into account are wind and seismic loads. But like I said, a plane is more likely to inflict less load than a typical earthquake. However, sustained fire damage is what brought down the twin towers, not the direct force of the planes.

Re:We are a bunch

[mdielmann]

And this is where you have to decide if you're going to pull up your pants and do something or cower in fear.
The reason 9/11 happened isn't because of the bravery of skill or cleverness of the hijackers, it's because of the institutionalized cowardice we've mandated in most 'civilized' countries in response to this. "Just do what they say, keep your head down, and let the professionals take care of it." The only thing that really changed after 9/11 was that we saw that perhaps the authorities won't get there in time, and maybe, just maybe, you can't trust hostage-takers for your welfare.
This institutionalized cowardice shows itself in other ways. People who refuse to fly after 9/11, even though it's arguably safer than before. Not because of the new 'security' measures, but because people know that if the hijackers succeed there's a good chance they'll all die, and so they'll do whatever it takes to keep that from happening. And of course the terrorists know that, and plane hijackings just aren't in vogue anymore.
Another way this institutionalized cowardice shows is people who just don't have the balls to say to themselves and their neighbours, their fellow hostages, "There's only one of him, only 9 (or 15 or 30) bullets in that gun, and if we storm him he won't be able to reload. Sure, one or more of us could die, but we aren't going to sit back and let fear and the threat of violence rule our lives."
Of course, bravery and stupidity can be easily mistaken. No sense rushing a squad of guys carrying automatics, but a single guy with a semi-auto pistol? That's not an unreasonable goal for 5 or 10 determined individuals. A few guys with box cutters? Why would you even wait?

Re:We are a bunch

[Shakrai]

Planes have gone down in populated neighborhoods before without massive loss of life. Certainly nothing on the scale of the twin towers coming down, which is what you'd be trying to prevent by shooting the thing down to begin with....

Re:We are a bunch

[Tanktalus]

like being fired at by an individual with a gun when you have none.

I think you may have just hit upon the problem. The guys who wish to do you harm have more power than the defenders.

CCW probably would have taken care of most of these issues. If even 10% of the populace were trained to carry concealed weapons, many of these atrocities could have been "crazy person kills two, gets shot down by four bystanders." Now, I realise that carrying weapons onto flying sardine cans is a different type of crazy, but assuming that it were allowed, rather than one covert lawman on the plane, we'd have 10 (assuming over a hundred passengers). Suddenly, 10 on 5 seem like much better odds of not crashing into a building. Seriously, I think the terrists would have chosen different attack vectors if they knew that 10% of the average plane's passengers were armed and cranky.

Re:We are a bunch

[witherstaff]

What, not a single truther talking about how it was actually the controlled demolitions that brought them down? It's a slow day when I can't get my conspiracy theory fix on /.

Re:We are a bunch

[Shakrai]

A man starts shooting in an immigrant center, and police take 45 minutes to enter the building, while people hide like scared rabbits waiting to be rescued. The police state that their response time was irrelevant - the victims would have died anyway.

With all due respect, I live in this town and the media hasn't reported that story fairly or accurately. Are you familiar with the fog of war? Nobody knows what's going on. All the police knew at the time is that they've arrived on scene and no shots are being fired. They have contact with the receptionist up front (the true heroine that day) and some people hiding in the basement. None of the people they had contact with could see the shooter -- all they knew was that the shots had ceased.

The working assumption at first was that they were dealing with a hostage situation. You may recall that this is what the media reported. Now if you think you are dealing with a hostage situation are you going to go charging in and risk further loss of life or are you going to try and establish contact with the hostage-taker while getting the rest of your units in place and ready to go in? Within ten minutes they had the shooters information and were attempting to contact him. When they eventually found his cell phone (abandoned in his vehicle as I recall) it had a series of missed calls from the police on it.

When they couldn't establish contact they decided to go into the building. They deployed the SWAT team and a robot from the bomb squad. Clearing the building took another 30-45 minutes, during which time the victims were being taken out. The folks in the basement were advised to barricade the door and remain in contact. As their cell phone batteries died they switched off and called from another phone. Further complicating this was the language barrier -- the building in question was an immigrant center and many of the victims didn't speak English.

Every local police officer I've spoken with says that they are trained for active shooter scenarios. If shots were still being fired when they arrived they would have gone in. It would have been messy (the suspect had body armor and patrolmen don't have the weapons or training to deal with that) but they would have gone in nonetheless. Since they didn't hear shots they proceeded with caution rather than risk running up the body count further. Does this really seem unreasonable to you?

Oh yes, we have reached the point where helplessness is considered noble

You'll brook no argument from me on this point. "Just wait for the police, don't try to do anything yourself, you might get hurt" The arguments against gun-ownership are particularly insulting in this regard. I just wanted to correct you on the Binghamton shooting. As I said, I live in this area and I feel that our police agencies handled the matter as well as could be expected with the information that they had at the time. Will they learn a few lessons from this and refine their procedures? Probably. Do they deserve our scorn for how they responded to this incident? No, IMHO, they don't.

Re:We are a bunch

[tnk1]

Well it could have... you know... been intercepted *over* Manhattan. I'm given to understand that there are more than a few airports in an 100 mile radius of NYC.

If you'd worked in or near the financial district during or after 9/11, you'd probably forgive them for being a little concerned. I'd say that their real-life experience with suspicious jetliners has been distinctly negative to-date.

Re:We are a bunch

[Dragonslicer]

The reason 9/11 happened isn't because of the bravery of skill or cleverness of the hijackers, it's because of the institutionalized cowardice we've mandated in most 'civilized' countries in response to this.

Except hijacked planes being crashed into buildings had never happened before. In every previous hijacking, the pilots flew the plane to $island_nation and all the passengers got home safely. People "weren't brave" because it would have been stupid, leading to deaths that would not have happened otherwise. The hijacked plane where the passengers learned what was happening is a prime example of what will happen in the future, since the passengers will remember the one time when it wasn't just a bunch of petty criminals trying to get some cash and transportation to another country. Hijacking planes is almost guaranteed to never work again, not because of the security theater, but because the passengers won't let it.

Re:We are a bunch

[ndege]

this plane was in restricted airspace

First, you clearly don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about. New York city is covered by class bravo airspace at the altitude the 747 was flying in. This is, by no means, restricted airspace. If I understand the FAR correctly, any 2 place Cessna 150 meeting the navigation/radio equipment requirements, obtaining ATC permission, and maintaining radio contact with the controller(s) can fly in this airspace. There is (at least last time I checked) even a VFR corridor directly next to downtown Manhattan!

Here is a good description of airspace classification system in the united states from wikipedia.

Specifically, here a quote from the above article that best describes restricted airspace:

Entry into restricted areas is prohibited under certain conditions without a special clearance obtained from the controlling agency obtained directly or via ATC. Examples of restricted areas include test firing ranges and other military areas with special hazards or containing sensitive zones.

If you are interested here is the New York TAC

Sorry if it seems rude for pulling out a clue-bat and swinging it in your direction.

Re:We are a bunch

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm rather happy I evacuated, anything else would have been foolish.

Maybe so, but that statement only reinforces that terrorism is effective. Admittedly, it is a thin line between prudence in your personal safely and living in fear. Either way the bearded douchebags celebrate today.

Re:We are a bunch

[amRadioHed]

"Indoctrination"? They did the right thing based on the history of hijackings until then. If you would have done something differently based on the knowledge available at the time you would have been the fool.

Re:We are a bunch

[Shakrai]

I was pointing out that the *institution* of policing has done the public a disservice by telling them "We'll protect you, so you don't need to protect yourself".

I don't think it's the police that are saying that. Unless you live in a major city (New York or LA size) I've never heard the police department claim that "We'll protect you, so don't bother to protect yourself". Around these parts most of the self-defense classes that you can take (both armed and unarmed) are run by law enforcement officers. I've talked to many of them and they all say that they can't be everywhere at once and encourage members of the public to be able to take care of themselves.

The problem runs a lot deeper than defending yourself from scumbags too. How many people do you know that make the effort to keep a first aid kit in the car? Something as simple as a benadryl tablet could save your life but how many people bother to keep them on hand? How many people keep a flashlight handy? How many people bother to invest in a decent multi-tool or even a pocketknife? Both could get you out of a lot of jams but most people don't own one or if they do it's left in a drawer at home. These people can't even take care of themselves and are of absolutely no use to their neighbors if disaster strikes.

Then on the matter of protecting yourself from scumbags.... we've been conditioned to think that we can just call 911 and all will be well. Yeah, well good luck with that if you live in the parts of the country with a 30 minute response time. Hell, even a 5 minute response time isn't fast enough if someone is intent on doing you harm. Yet how many people have bothered to learn even basic self-defense skills? I'm not even talking about concealed carry -- simple situational awareness is enough to keep you out of danger 95% of the time. The simple act of carrying a flashlight could save your life if you meet a scumbag at night -- why do you think the police always shine the damn thing in your face when they pull you over at night? Pretty damn disorienting isn't it?

Yeah, it's annoying. I don't blame the police per say though. I blame their political masters and the general laziness of the American population. Most of the police that I know wish that people were better able to take care of themselves. It would save them a lot of headaches.

Re:We are a bunch

[xouumalperxe]

No, the worst case scenario is that the fighters would've blown the plane up before it was overflying Manhattan. Either over an unpopulated region or, as callous as it may sound, somewhere less "important" (mostly, more sparsely populated) than Manhattan

The definition of "terrorist" is someone who fights using "terror". As in fear. By acting like a bunch of sissies, you're playing right into their hands.

Re:We are a bunch

[Anonymous Coward]

*bzzt* You lose.

The "concealed carry" solution has been proposed several times over the last few years, normally after some randomer goes on a shooting spree. If you'd been paying attention the last few times, you'd have learned why it wouldn't work. Clearly you weren't, so I'll recap once more.

You're in a school / mall / airport. You hear gunshots and screaming. You're carrying a weapon. You race to the scene. You see a guy with a gun, surrounded by bodies. He turns towards you.

Do you shoot or pause to think?

Shoot? What if the guy was a goodie? Well done, you've just killed an innocent bystander, who heard gunshots and screaming and then raced to the scene with his weapon drawn.

Pause? What if the guy was a baddie? Bang, you're shot.

And even if he was a baddie, and you shoot him, what happens when the next innocent but armed bystander hears the gunshots and screaming and races to the scene, only to find you with your gun drawn, standing over a growing pile of still-twitching corpses?

Until those wascally terrorists start wearing easily identifiable clothes, they're just going to look like you and me. Which is why carrying concealed weapons is such a danger - how do you identify the legitimate targets?

Re:We are a bunch

[YourExperiment]

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm certainly no expert - but isn't shooting down an airliner full of civilian passengers over an extremely densely populated urban area quite a tough call to make? Is it not possible the fighter jet could be tailing the airliner whilst awaiting orders as to its next move? Would this not imply that the situation could indeed be far from "under control"?

Wow....

[Drakin020]

It's pretty terrible that we as a nation are this scared by such events.

It's amazing how much people live in fear these days.

Re:Wow....

[TheMeuge]

It's not "amazing" that people live in fear. It's REQUIRED. Anyone not living in fear is being thoroughly unpatriotic.

Remember, if you've checked the "Democrat" box, you must fear Conservatives, Pedophiles, Rednecks, and Terrorists. If you've checked the "Republican" box, you have to fear Liberals, Gays, Foreigners, and Terrorists. Either way you have to support more surveillance and less individual rights.

Face it - rational risk assessment is unAmerican in the 21st century. If you're not afraid, then you can't be bullied and herded efficiently... and we can't have that.

Re:Wow....

[MikeXpop]

If you were in Manhattan and saw a low-flying commercial airliner tailed by two F-16s, you wouldn't blink an eyelash?

Re:Wow....

[sweatyboatman]

rational risk assessment is unAmerican in the 21st century

errr... the last time a 747 flew low across downtown Manhattan, 3000 people died. That was 8 years ago. Statistically, these are very rare, very deadly events.

rational risk assessment would suggest evacuating tall buildings in such an event.

the evacuations and panic could have been avoided if the authorities had been permitted to notify building operators beforehand.

Re:Wow....

[MightyYar]

It's pretty terrible that we as a nation are this scared by such events.

It's not a nation scared by such events, it's a couple hundred thousand people who work within a few blocks of where - in case you missed it - two low-flying planes hit a prominent local building, killing several thousand and leaving a huge hole in the ground.

It's amazing how much people live in fear these days.

The entrance to the train station which these people use everyday is part of the above mentioned hole. The only thing amazing is that you would have a hard time seeing why they might be "scared by such events".

Re:Wow....

[twidarkling]

There is a very real threat and people are justifiably concerned.

      Brett

No there isn't. It's one of those once-in-a-lifetime events. I could be worried about an elevator car falling 20 stories and killing me in the fall, or being hit by lightning. Either of those are more likely than a repeat of 9/11. Vigilance against threat is one thing. To focus on one event to the point where it affects your work is excessive. There's no reason to worry specifically that any random jet is going to crash in to your building. That's just fearmongering.

Re:Wow....

[Sancho]

By the time you can tell that it is/isn't Air Force One, it's probably too late.

Re:Wow....

[flaming error]

Mod parent up.

The framers left a framework that could be used to keep gov't in line. But many of us cede our brains to some other person or organization, and by not thinking for ourselves we waive our chance to lodge our opinion. And we lose.

Re:Wow....

[MikeXpop]

I'm a 7 minute walk from Logan International Airport. 747s do land in what is practically my front yard every day. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be alarmed at the sight of one being tailed by two F-16s when flying low over a major city. Particularly if that same section of downtown was famously attacked by two commercial airliners not even a decade ago.

Re:Wow....

[Crockerboy]

I live 15 minutes from BWI too. The difference is we didn't watch 2 airliners crash into our neighbors house. Even so, I'd still be a little nervous to see a commercial airliner being trailed by fighter jets. It's not exactly an everyday occurrence.

Re:Wow....

[Lawrence_Bird]

Clearly you weren't anywhere NYC or DC on 9/11 or you might think differently of a widebody flying at 1000 feet where none others are allowed.

Think before you post next time.

Re:Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, 757, 767... "big planes" ...Please mod parent down. Comment completely misses the point.

Re:Wow....

[IndustrialComplex]

No there isn't. It's one of those once-in-a-lifetime events. I could be worried about an elevator car falling 20 stories and killing me in the fall, or being hit by lightning

Would you stand in a field during a thunderstorm?

I'm not worried about the single aircraft being escorted by fighters. I'd be worried because last time... there were two.

Re:Wow....

[BlowHole666]

Yes but lets assume you run to the window of your office. You see a 747 with 2 f-16's behind it. Now can you tell me how long those two f-16's have been behind that jet? No you can't because you just got to the window. So now you are left to think "They are now over a city, will they shoot it down over a city?". So now everyone is left to wonder what to governments "plans" are when it comes to a low flying aircraft followed by fighter gets. Will the government give the fighters the green light to shoot down a plane over a city? I am sure most people figured the Bush administration would. But would the Obama administration? Has Obama said what he would or would not do on the subject?

So you are left with a plane flying low followed by fighter jets and your not sure if they are authorized to shoot down a plane or not. Do you think think it would just be a little bit safer to get out of your building just in case? Who knows just because it was Air Force One does not mean they could not hit a building by mistake.

Think of it as a hurricane warning. You know a hurricane is coming and your think says do not fearmonger and stay where you are. However other peoples thinking says "Hey lets go out of here just in case". Both are acceptable ways to think about the situation neither is right nor wrong. A choice is only wrong after your have all of the facts.

Also if TFA said "747 followed by two F-16's flew low over NYC. People evacuated buildings as a precaution." I do not think you would bring up your fearmongering comment. However, you know that it was a photo opt. They did not.

Re:Wow....

[treeves]

Ummm, no. Fear is a protective response which has evolved to keep us from doing risky things. So it's really a good thing. Like pain, which keeps us from further injuring an already injured body part. It's just that technological advances and cultural structures have far outpaced the rate of evolutionary change, so our fear response isn't optimally suited to the modern world in which we live.

Re:Wow....

[Bigjeff5]

And how often do jet-liners fly around Manhattan at 1/2 the height of the WTC towers? You realise that is how low Air Force 1.2 was flying, right?

Any idiot with a memory and a little willingness to live will trade 2 hours of their work day on a one-off event to make sure they don't die.

Risk of death (since this is quite similar to what happened 8 years ago) vs. missing an hour or two of work. Most reasonably intelligent people would scram, just in case. By the way you and others evaluate risk, man I'd sure love to play some poker against you some time. I could make a killing! You'll be thinking: "He's only ever taken all of my chips once, and even though he's playing almost exactly like he did last time, there's no way he's going to do the same thing to me this time, I'll just keep betting even though I have no good cards." Ka-ching! What are the odds anyway, right? AmIright?

Flip the situation around, if it HAD been another hijacked plane, and it HAD flown into a building and the people HADN'T evacuated because they didn't want to be seen as wussies, then you same people would be talking about how such idiots they were, they had all this evidence, I mean it was almost EXACTLY LIKE last time, any idiot would know to evacuate, blah blah blah.

You people are childish. When an event has only ever happened once, and something that appears to be very similar is happening again in the same area, the rational response is to protect yourself. The only protection against a plane crashing into a building is: *drumroll* Evacuating!

My question is, why the hell were they flying so low? They HAD to have known this would cause a scare!

Re:Wow....

[Tubal-Cain]

Nor fighters - if there were, there would not have BEEN 9/11 as we now know it.

To paraphrase from Tom Clancy's book Executive Orders:
200 tons of aluminium, fibreglass and fuel doesn't just stop .

If the planes had been shot down, they would have hit something. Maybe more buildings than two individual planes could.

Re:Wow....

[hazem]

So what you're saying is that if you saw a bear in the middle of the city, well outside where you know the zoo to be located, you'd laugh at all the people running for their lives and would go about your business, because you see bears all the time in the city zoo?

If you watch the Colbert Report, you'd know that bears are a totally different thing!

However, I see airplanes when I'm inside and around buildings all the time, so I'd probably stay put. If I ran down the stairs every time I saw an airplane from my office, I'd spend all my time in the lobby. Airplanes are pretty common.

As for the bear, well, I've only seen an unconstrained bear once and that did make me a bit nervous. And I suppose if I saw one walking loose in a city, I'd be nervous too. But from a statistical point of view, "seeing a bear walking loose in the city" is a much different event than "seeing a bear in a cage". If a truck stopped at a light and there was a bear in a cage in the back, I'd probably stand there and watch. I wouldn't try to feed it though.

Back to the airplane, I suppose it's probably a lot like artillery... the one you can see and hear is not the one that's going to get you. As fast as planes go, you're not going to see or hear the one that's going to hit your building. So really, you'd be safer to run out of your building when you don't see or hear an airplane.

Re:Wow....

[greyhueofdoubt]

>>There's no reason

Hold up there, Spock. What's the most traumatic thing that's ever happened to you? Watch you kid die in a hit-and-run? Been shot at? Watched your buddy disintegrate from a mortar hit? Ever watched a child with 3rd degree burns over 50% of their body die?

There are things in life that will change you. You don't have to experience them over and over again. This is pure terror/trauma causing a permanent change in the way you think.

There is a reason for people to view an airplane flying *at or below their offices* in New York City as a threat. I wasn't there but I am intimately familiar with PTSD and I am not surprised at their reactions.

>>There's no reason

Why do you like your favorite color? Why do you like your favorite band? Why do you find one show to be funny but not another? No reason, when you boil it down, except that it makes you feel good, or satisfies something fundamentally unexplainable in you. And for these people, taking cover in the face of what could very well be a threat is reasonable. It satisfied an emotional need, something no one with an ounce of empathy would deny them.

>>Vigilance against threat is one thing.

Vigilance is a long-term strategy. Fight or flight, in this case, was proper and it would have saved many lives had this been an attack. There are some threats that by their very nature need instant reactions- A shark fin near me while I was swimming would make me get out of the water. I wouldn't observe its habits and determine how hungry it was, whether I was in its territory, etc. because if the shark WAS a threat, I'd be lunch.

Sorry to ramble.

-b

Wtf?

[twidarkling]

First off, to get it out of my system:

Was also spurred evacuations

*headdesk*

Okay, now for the real comment:

A plane is being escorted by F-16s. And this causes hundreds of people to flee for their lives by making a mad dash out of their building? There's being careful, then there's being an overly paranoid idiot. I'm pretty sure that if the jets are there, you'd be safer *in a building* rather than where all the explodey shrapnel can get to you.

Re:Wtf?

[Manfre]

A plane is being escorted by F-16s. And this causes hundreds of people to flee for their lives by making a mad dash out of their building? There's being careful, then there's being an overly paranoid idiot. I'm pretty sure that if the jets are there, you'd be safer *in a building* rather than where all the explodey shrapnel can get to you.

A low flying 747 flying low near manhattan being pursued by F-16s. Definitely no reason to be alarmed! After all, if they fired missiles at the potentially hijacked plane it would explode completely like in the movies. There definitely wouldn't be any large, flaming fragments of the plane to crash in to buildings, potentially trapping those inside. You're right, definitely much safer in buildings.

Re:Wtf?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

And this causes hundreds of people to flee for their lives by making a mad dash out of their building?

No, it gives a bunch of folks the excuse to drop their work, run outside, have a cigarette, grab a hot dog, a beer, another hot dog, more beer . . .

Re:Wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because its SO much better to be outside, on the ground, when the flaming debris starts hitting the ground. Compounded with burning jet fuel, etc etc etc.

But at least you might get the award for the most fucking useless and stupid comment on /. today. Congratulations.

Re:Interesting

[eldavojohn]

-Building tall buildings underground, instead of above.

They're a coffin if there's a fire on the ground floor and you're on floor -50? Flooding and water damage? More work to displace 50 stories of earth, rock and shale than 50 stories of air?

-Requiring high altitudes for all planes, military or civilian

I think these are in place. Last time I saw a flight map for a city, there were huge no fly circles around it. I'm not a pilot but I think that's been around for a while.

producing auto-shoot auto-aim turrets around the ciy with no warning shots.

Is this a joke?

Include parashoots as standard emergency materials for skyscrapers?

There are no easy exits from a skyscraper nor should there be. This wouldn't have saved many lives ... if any at all. People would be too scared to jump until absolutely sure the planes are going to hit them.

I do not think these people were overreacting. Although I feel that their fears were statistically misplaced, I more than likely would have opted to "take a brisk walk in the park" upon seeing that uncommon event out my window.

Bloomberg is such a total git...

[Mnemennth]

He's out there sucking up video time bashing the Obama Administation over this, when his office WAS advised, and HE DID NOTHING to prepare his community.

Sure people got scared, and rightly so, but is was HIS OWN FAULT.

mnem

Politics is just like the internet: the louder, the flashier something is; the more it jumps up & down for your attention, the likelier it is to be poisonous to your system or at least utter BS.

Re:Interesting

[Frigga's Ring]

Oh goodness, please tell me you're just trying to be funny.

Listen people: if you're alive, one day, you're going to die. You can take steps to live longer (eat healthy, wear a seatbelt, don't drink cyanide, etc), but worrying about every plane that flies over your house is not one of them.

Take heart in knowing that you're more likely to be struck and killed by a train while worriedly searching the sky for an airplane thousands of feet up.

Not an over-reaction...

[Dimes]

Planes don't fly low here anymore. Its not allowed. Certainly not 747s. For the people that were here Sept 11, 2001(I was one of the many)....its very upsetting, disturbing....to look up and see a plane that low and near. So don't jump to conclusions about people over-reacting. Its a real thing for New Yorkers and others in the area.

Re:Not an over-reaction...

[SpasticWeasel]

You guys must really freak out when LGA is landing Rwy 13. All those planes coming in to land flying right up the Hudson just a mile away and 2000' up must really get you going.

Re:Not an over-reaction...

[Colonel Korn]

Why the hell is this modded troll? It's the fucking truth. A low-flying plane is not a problem, it happens all the time. A low-flying plane, escorted by a fighter, is not one either.

And for those who panic at the sight of a low-flying jet - I suggest moving out of a major city into the boonies. Otherwise, you're not going to lead anything remotely resembling a productive life.

Except this is the first time this has happened in the designated no-fly zone in New York City since at least 9/11/01, and possibly the first time ever with a jumbo jet and a fighter escort. Even if everyone in the city skipped work every time this happened, they'd have missed, at most, one day per ten years.

Re:Sounds silly, but is it?

[Cormacus]

You know, I don't think those jets could have done anything about a 747 if it suddenly decided to head towards a building. I'm surprised by the amount of *facepalm* happening here. In a city where several major skyscrapers were taken out by low-flying passenger planes, it really wouldn't have hurt if the folks that were planning this had mentioned something to the people at large. They clearly knew there would be a reaction - they let 311 and 911 operators know about it. So why not let the media know? Jay Leno could make a few jokes about it, people would laugh at how crass it was, and then when it happened folks could look up and go "oh yeah, that's strange, but its supposed to be happening. Thanks for the heads-up."

We're in the age of *information* right?

Re:Interesting

[eln]

It's one thing to be nervous when a plane flies by. It's entirely another thing to evacuate multiple buildings when a plane flies by.

We are a nation of overreactors. When we see a bag someone has left on a bench, we have to evacuate 4 square miles and call in the bomb squad. When someone shows up at the gate at an airport without his boarding pass, we evacuate the airport, ground all the planes, and search the whole place.

It pays to be cautious, but there's a vast middle ground between doing nothing and panicking over every little thing.

Perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

People should stop being so godamn insensitive? I mean, a lot of these people either worked in or around the WTC when it was hit. A lot of them lost family and friends in those buildings. There's ALWAYS going to be a sense of fear instilled in these people because of 9/11. It's not that they haven't gone on with their lives, it's not that they harp on the subject, it's that these people witnessed the greatest terrorist event in the history of the United States. If you think you wouldn't be so concerned about a Jet colliding with your building, either killing you, forcing you to jump from 70 stories up, or coming down on top of you, I suggest you think about the horrible realities that September 11th brought to that city and its people, and hwo you'd feel if someone close to you died so senselessy and terribly.

Re:Interesting

[PixelThis]

I'll probably regret responding to this but it's a slow Monday...

* Building "tall" buildings underground costs a whole lot more than building up above ground. There are also issues with depth and air pressure, especially when you start talking about 40+ story buildings going down. All of a sudden getting the bends becomes an issue when it's time to go home (or God forbid evacuate the building).

* Required mandatory high altitudes for all planes... how were you imagining that they'd land? Most major cities have airports right close by.

* Normal parachutes don't always deploy effectively for drops of less than 500 feet, so that eliminates a lot of buildings. Also parachutes don't work so well when the wind blows you into the side of building you just jumped out of... or the one across the street.

Maybe we should work on helping these people get over their panic-first think-later reactions? It'll be long term less expensive and ultimately more effective.

Put yourself in their shoes

[dangle]

Unfortunately for people who experienced the collapse of the WTC towers first hand, low flying planes crashing into buildings is something that could reasonably happen, and one could argue that it is not sane to wait and see if an unusually low flying plane is actually going to crash into a building before taking steps to save one's life.

Re:Put yourself in their shoes

[joshamania]

People who also get shot at sometimes go back into combat knowing it could be their ass. In case you don't understand my use of irony here, most people are weak, stupid or both.

Re:Put yourself in their shoes

[Tgeigs]

"low flying planes crashing into buildings is something that could reasonably happen" WHAT???!!! Define reasonably immediately, because if our definitions are the same, than that is shockingly important. On a related note, anyone who would choose to live in a city where planes flying into buildings is something that could "reasonably happen" is an idiot. Having said that, I define reasonably in terms of liklihood, and statements like the one you made are proof that the "too scared to be rational" approach our lawmakers have taken against us is working...

Re:Put yourself in their shoes

[dangle]

Sorry. "Reasonably" from the point of view of the less rational parts of our brains that don't ever want to have to experience something terrible that has happened a second time (no matter how unlikely a repeat may be), generating fear and a strong desire to flee. The part that can take over even though the rational part is able to consider the likelihood of another plane crash is very low.

Re:Put yourself in their shoes

[houghi]

Unfortunately for people who experienced the collapse of the WTC towers first hand, low flying planes crashing into buildings is something that could reasonably happen, and one could argue that it is not sane to wait and see if an unusually low flying plane is actually going to crash into a building before taking steps to save one's life.

I just re-read this 5 times and realized that the terrorists have won.

Re:Put yourself in their shoes

[vmxeo]

Unfortunately for people who experienced the collapse of the WTC towers first hand, low flying planes crashing into buildings is something that could reasonably happen, and one could argue that it is not sane to wait and see if an unusually low flying plane is actually going to crash into a building before taking steps to save one's life.

As a New Yorker, I'd like to reaffirm this. After watching first-hand both planes hit the Twin Towers and both towers collapsing, yes, I feel a bit skittish when planes fly very low overhead. Not only did we have 9/11, but we've had a plane recently splash-land into the Hudson, as well as a number of both larger and smaller craft crash into buildings or into a river. It happens rarely, when planes fly low on purpose it usually evokes the same reactions from other New Yorkers, they pause and look up, wondering if it's suppose to be where it is, or if its going to crash.

Most comments here quick point out how stupid and unreasonable this is. Yes, by definition, it is unreasonable. It's a deep survival instinct that kicks in until the higher reasoning thoughts point out that it's ok and to go about your business. I also experienced the Loma Prieta earthquake growing up near San Francisco, along with countless smaller tremors. When I moved to NYC, for the first year my mind would go into a momentary panic when ever I felt the rumble of the subway going by. Again, it was stupid and unreasonable, but there's a reason its there. Someday, when planes stop crashing into buildings here in the city, enough time will go by and New Yorkers will stop freaking out, and reason will prevail. Someday...

Re:Put yourself in their shoes

[Anonymous Coward]

something that could reasonably happen

So, you consider a catastrophe that happens so extraordinarily rarely that the felling of multiple building by planes simultaneously (for all intents and purposes) has never happened at any point in the past in the history of mankind (to my knowledge... and even if there IS one other occurance, it's still extraordinarily rare)... as something that could "reasonably happen".

Holy christ man. Better run around with a sign saying "The end is nigh", since it's statistically possible that every molecule in your body will spontaneously appear on Mars FIVE SECONDS AFTER YOU READ THIS!

Guess what... I've been in multiple car accidents, but I still drive. 9/11 occured, but I still get in an airplane, and do NOT have any reasonable expectation that it will be taken over and fly into a building!

People need to get the fuck over this already. Move on, for the love of god.

Re:Put yourself in their shoes

[Anonymous Coward]

And what if I said that my father died in a car accident? Would you be amazed that I'm capable of not only driving, but driving while NOT acting like a scared little kitten in a dog pound?

I stand by my statements. Get the fuck over it.

Re:Put yourself in their shoes

[quenda]

I just re-read this 5 times and realized that the terrorists have won.

Actually, the (sep11) terrorists won when the US withdrew their troops from Saudi. That was their top goal. Goading the US into a futile war in Afghanistan, and removing the hated Bathists in Iraq were just happy bonuses.

Re:Put yourself in their shoes

[easyTree]

Would you call that a victory of terrorism or common sense?

Terrorism. Someone's far more likely to get shot and/or have the plane suffer depressurization if some (untrained) have-a-go hero uhm.. has a go.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget evacuating a city when someone leaves Lite-Brites lying aruond

Uhh, doesn't this prove the terrorists have won?

[Anonymous Coward]

terrorism
-noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Does this not be definition prove that the terrorists have in fact won? Fleeing for your life every time a plane fly's a little lower then normal sure wouldn't be a way I would want to live my life.

i worked at the world trade center until 9/11/01

[circletimessquare]

and oh look: a bumper crop of smug slashdot comments calling lower manhattan office workers panicky fear-addled fools

bonus comment: its better to stay inside the building. and this is actually modded up (facepalm)

let's just break it down for you world-weary heart-heavy wise men:

if you saw airplanes flying into office towers on 9/11, then the sight of a 747 a few hundred feet off the ground, nearly clipping office towers in lower manhattan, followed by an f-16, this just might persude you to leave the area as well. but naaah... clearly its low-iq hysteria, right?

you may now continue your overly judgmental certitude in your rural basements, safe in your knowledge that all reactions you disprove of are nothing more than irrational fear. you of course are immune to this. when it comes the federal government's wiretapping policies, copyright laws, and anti-pornography crusade, rather than prudent moves to dispel these unwise ideas, the proper reaction is panty-twisting pronouncements of the end of democracy and western liberal ideals. right?

truly, you are all level-headed fountains of wisdom of the ways of humankind. not in any way hypocritical asses

where oh where would we all be without your insightful words? hmmm. maybe with a little less self-serving and smug condescension? naaah

look: an anti-pornography law! whine and moan about the end of western civilization. nothing fear-addled there

blind overly judgmental hypocrites. that's all i see

xoxoxoxox

Complaining about wrong thing here?

[puregen1us]

Is it possible that people are complaining about the wrong thing here? Sure, the discussion about whether to run or not is interesting, but how about whether people should have been informed or not?

Given that there were memos sent to numerous organisations, and yet the information was not disseminated at the will of Obama, isn't there a more pressing question here?

Like, why would the president want to scare the crap out of southern manhattan? It's not a huge stretch to assume that flying a 747 low over Manhattan would scare people...

Re:Complaining about wrong thing here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick, someone send them a copy of Photoshop. A low flyby of a huge plane for pictures with the Statue of liberty in the background? Seriously?

"Fire!" in a movie theater?

[eck011219]

Based on other comments, my opinion will clearly be unpopular. But how is this not akin to shouting "fire!" in a movie theater? Lower Manhattan is full of people who lived through 9/11, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that a low-flying 747 being escorted by a fighter jet would send up warning flags for those people. Add to that the fact that a lot of people stuck it out in the Twin Towers expecting to be rescued (and in doing so, died), and it makes some sense that people would high-tail it out of a tall building in the vicinity. Given all of that, I think it's rather small to dismiss a bunch of people who reacted to this today as wusses.

This wasn't a criminal act, it wasn't an act of terror. It was an insensitive and stupid act. Seems to me a little extra thought could have come up with a better solution than doing this that DOESN'T run the risk of sending a lot of people into a panic?

Besides, isn't this what Photoshop is for?

Mod parent up.

[adolf]

I was going to say something like this, but the parent poster beat me to it.

Really, folks: To react with such, well, terror over every little thing, is only an indications that the terrorists have won.

There's no realistic way to outrun a jet on foot, or an elevator. So why bother with the panic? For fuck's sake: The only way to get out of the way of something like this means that the last thing going through your mind will be your spleen.

I, for one, would take this as a sign that I should go up on the roof to have a cigar and watch the strangeness, perhaps after asking the boss if he'd like to join me with the bottle of bourbon that he always keeps in his desk drawer.

Of all the things to be scared of, terrorism in the US should not be one of them.