Slashdot Mirror


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."

35 of 898 comments (clear)

  1. Wow.... by Drakin020 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
    1. Re:Wow.... by TheMeuge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Wow.... by MikeXpop · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
    3. Re:Wow.... by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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".

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Wow.... by twidarkling · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    5. Re:Wow.... by Sancho · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    6. Re:Wow.... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    7. Re:Wow.... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  2. Not an over-reaction... by Dimes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Interesting by eln · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Wtf? by Manfre · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Put yourself in their shoes by dangle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Put yourself in their shoes by vmxeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...

  7. Re:We are a bunch by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  8. Re:Wtf? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  9. Re:We are a bunch by antibryce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:We are a bunch by plague3106 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:We are a bunch by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  12. i worked at the world trade center until 9/11/01 by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  13. Re:We are a bunch by jabithew · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
  14. Re:We are a bunch by tholomyes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
  15. Re:We are a bunch by BikeHelmet · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

  16. Re:We are a bunch by C0C0C0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    +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.

    --
    You are totally blocking my view of the wall. - Dogbert
  17. Re:We are a bunch by jabithew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
  18. Re:We are a bunch by Diagoras · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I value politeness. If you extend it to me, I'll extend it to you.
  19. Complaining about wrong thing here? by puregen1us · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

  20. Re:We are a bunch by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is nothing to be ashamed of

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

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  21. "Fire!" in a movie theater? by eck011219 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  22. Re:We are a bunch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  23. Re:We are a bunch by danbert8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  24. Re:We are a bunch by mdielmann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  25. Re:We are a bunch by witherstaff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 /.

  26. Re:We are a bunch by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  27. Re:We are a bunch by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.