Another Plane Down in New York 1113
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.
Unknown (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's not jump to conclusions.
Possible cause (Score:5, Interesting)
paranoia? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Federalization (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Explosion tore the wing off (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
the terrorists have done a great job (Score:2, Redundant)
They have the public scared, even if this had nothing to do with terrorism, more people will be afraid.
Only if you live in NorthEast (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.
Before we even get started... (Score:2, Redundant)
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
Re:Before we even get started... (Score:3, Informative)
It is still a tragedy though
Re:Before we even get started... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Before we even get started... (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. :-(
Re:Before we even get started... (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.
Re:At least consider the possibility (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you answered your own question.. It's different times now, they call for different procedures.
Re:Before we even get started... (Score:3, Informative)
--G
I can see the smoke (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I can see the smoke (Score:5, Insightful)
CBC coverage (Score:3, Informative)
Re:CBC coverage (Score:3, Informative)
According to ABC News (Score:2, Informative)
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.
airbus, not 767 (Score:5, Funny)
---
Re:airbus, not 767 (Score:2, Informative)
I cannot believe this (Score:4, Funny)
GET SOME PRIORITIES!!
BBC News story (Score:2, Informative)
Airbus (Score:3, Redundant)
No word on cause.
~=Keelor
Re:Airbus (Score:3, Funny)
Um, yeah. Way to go CNN.
On approach to JFK (Score:2)
Probably Routine Plane crash. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Probably Routine Plane crash. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
impacted at 129th and Newport- map of impact (Score:2, Redundant)
Yahoo map of impact zone
http://maps.yahoo.com/py/maps.py?BFCat=&Pyt=Tma
Tested and Embedded URL (Score:3, Informative)
robots.cnn.com load balancing mirror (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Direct URL to CNN story (via load-balancing) (Score:5, Informative)
There's a direct URL, load balancing.
Another source: CNN closed-caption feed on IRC (Score:3, Informative)
BBC news still on-line (Score:3, Informative)
Re:BBC news still on-line (Score:3, Informative)
The BBC in the UK is carrying live TV footage of F15s fighters flying very low over the area.
Remember Non-US sites will be less busy. (Score:4, Informative)
For example: Canada's Globe & Mail [globeandmail.ca]
bandwidth/capacity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:bandwidth/capacity (Score:3, Interesting)
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:
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.
Slow down everyone! (Score:2, Flamebait)
Slow down, don't post so damn quick.
BBC Link (Score:2)
BBC Radio 1 is reporting nothing at present - actually playing 'heaven is a halfpipe'!
Video on MSNBC (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.msnbc.com/m/lv/default.asp?0cv=c642 [msnbc.com]
CNN Article Posted (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Map of Queens: (Score:3, Informative)
FYI: Far rockaways are very near JFK.
from CNN (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.
European CNN mirror still works. (Score:4, Informative)
Not a 767 (Score:2)
Clarifications from CNN (TV) (Score:3, Informative)
- Not a 767, an Airbus A-300 (seats around 300 people)
- It was American Airlines flight 587;
- 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.
------
more from CNN (since it's being /.ed) (Score:2, Redundant)
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...
NPR says: (Score:2)
"Just a plane crash" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Mindless Speculation (Score:2, Redundant)
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?
Summing It all Up (Score:2)
props to slashdot (Score:2)
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
the plane: (Score:2, Informative)
linky linky" [airbus.com]
Coverage (Score:2, Informative)
Abcnews.go.com appears to be down.
MSNBC [msnbc.com] is up with coverage [msnbc.com].
Newssites quickly went to light - Dow-Jones faster (Score:2, Interesting)
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
NYT article 10:08 EST (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? [hevanet.com]
246 passengers, 9 crew possibly aboard (Score:2)
246 Passengers and 9 crew on board (Score:2)
CNN up with preliminary numbers (Score:4, Informative)
* 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
Slightly more detail (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/1069613/de
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.
Crash news via IRC (Score:4, Informative)
Think, don't react. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
engines don't "fall off" planes... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Other Airbus crashes (Score:3, Interesting)
Psychological effects of the 11th (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Feds contemplating shutting down air space again (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
We dont know! (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Rampant speculation is a good thing (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.
Catastrophic bird strike caused crash? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
The War on Birds begins! (Score:5, Funny)
Dick, lets launch some tomahawks! I like their perdy smoke trails...
Re:unbelievable (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:unbelievable (Score:2)
But this is what
Re:unbelievable (Score:2)
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.
Airbus A-300, not 767 (Score:4, Informative)
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.cra
Re:pic @ skynews (Score:4, Redundant)
Re:type unknown (Score:2, Redundant)
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...
Re:Got through to CNN (Score:2)
Re:Got through to CNN (Score:2)
Doesn't matter, Slashdot is my source for breaking news from now on.
Re:All the news sites are falling over (Score:2)
Joy, great timing for Amtrak to get disolved [amtrak.com]. :-(
Re:All the news sites are falling over (Score:2)
Re:*Leap* (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:*Leap* (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [cnn.com] 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.
Re:*Leap* (Score:4, Insightful)
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?Re:*Leap* (Score:3, Insightful)
If you really feel this way, let me ask you:
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.
Re:*Leap* (Score:3, 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.
Frustrating (Score:4, Troll)
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.
Nope, it's worse (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:*Leap* (Score:2)
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...
Re:Engine Explosion Reported (Score:2)
Re:JHC.... not again. (Score:2, Informative)
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."
Re:Fire Department (Score:2)
Highly suspect article (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? (Score:5, Informative)
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 [ntsb.gov], 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.
Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? (Score:4, Informative)
Parachutes?!? What ARE you smoking? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Parachutes?!? What ARE you smoking? (Score:5, Informative)
Right! And Wrong. There is a company called Ballistic Recovery Systems [airplaneparachutes.com] 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.
Re:the razor of logic says... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:What does it prove? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.