Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Plane Crash In Queen's, NYC

Page: 1(2)3

12:48 / 12.11.01

I actually thought that same thing, and BTW NPR reported this morning that if Gore had had only the counties he had requested counted in the election, he would have lost, but if all undervotes and overvotes in the state of Florida were counted Al Gore would have been the winner.

To put that in simpler terms, if every vote had been counted, Al Gore would have won the state of Florida.

But anyway - you know I really hope this doesn't severely limit air travel. I feel that is selfish but I just really hope it doesn't. I'll take a boat out of here if I have to I swear to god...

12:48 / 12.11.01

Engine fell off. Plane crashed into ground... right next to a beach. So the pilot was probably heading for water to minimize damage.

12:51 / 12.11.01

No, no, lionheart. There must have been a fucking hanging chad stuck in the engine. Jesus.

12:52 / 12.11.01

can we keep conspiracy theories down to a tolerable hum here? start a new thread if'n y'wanna conspire

12:54 / 12.11.01

Emergency number 0018002450999

12:58 / 12.11.01

Just saw footage of the jettisoned engine. DIdn't see any blast marks or signs of damage that didn't look reasonalbly consistent with falling damage.

12:58 / 12.11.01

latest workj from the FBI is that they do not believe it was a terrorist attack.

12:58 / 12.11.01

Yes...You see, I didn't notice that 'Beach' bit in 'Rockaway Beach', which would have suggested that the pilot was actually heading for the water...

D'oh!

12:59 / 12.11.01

quote:Originally posted by Bioluminescent K9:
No, no, lionheart. There must have been a fucking hanging chad stuck in the engine. Jesus.

LMAO.

Now I really, really regret posting that.

<pops more Xanax>

13:02 / 12.11.01

NY Times has a map of the crash location:

I work right near the bottom right corner of the "WTC" big ol block.

13:03 / 12.11.01

Hmm. At the mo, definitely looks like an accident. And if it isn't, I don't think we're gonna know about that for a while yet.

Dropping back to yellow alert. Scuse me while I change the bulb.

13:06 / 12.11.01

You've got a bulb?

Wow.

13:09 / 12.11.01

Maybe someone that knows God could ask Him to lay off of NY for awhile.

13:20 / 12.11.01

Just heard a little comparison on NPR about a similar accident in Chicago in '79, in which a DC-10 had the engine drop out and then the plane crashed, and that did end up being mechanical error.

Don't know. And sorry BioK9 and others, wasn't trying to make it a conspiracy theory fest, it had just popped in my head. I'll knock it off.

13:21 / 12.11.01

Some accident. The plane started breaking up in the air before the crash. It wasn't just the engine that fell off.

Of course that's what I hear now. The story may change later. We'll just have to wait and see.

13:23 / 12.11.01

does NPR have a web feed? can you listen via the net?

13:24 / 12.11.01

They do have a webfeed: www.wnyc.org (NPR's NYC affiliate).

Ronald Thomas Clontle

13:29 / 12.11.01

quote:Originally posted by Bioluminescent K9:
Maybe someone that knows God could ask Him to lay off of NY for awhile.

It may sound callous, but I've been wondering when fucking California will FINALLY get hit.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

13:50 / 12.11.01

CNN reporting an explosion on board the plane. No cause as yet.

gentleman loser

13:55 / 12.11.01

I hope people will remain calm and not give in to media hype driven panic. That's exactly what the terrorists who destroyed the WTC towers would want.

Put simply, we don't know the facts as yet.

[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: gentleman loser ]

The Return Of Rothkoid

13:57 / 12.11.01

Is this the report, Nick? It's an eyewitness report.

14:43 / 12.11.01

Watch CNN tape of the downed engine. A man in civilian dress bends down and removes a small object from the crashed engine, then steps back to a group of men in civilian dress and stashes the item on his person. Why is he messing with a potential crime scene?

14:54 / 12.11.01

If this was an accident and not a terrorist act then I could imagine some people who truly believed they were fighting a holy war could read alot into this. Invisible hand.

15:01 / 12.11.01

quote: from Nick: Does it even matter whether it was brought down? Rank and file US is never going to believe that, and this will simply pull the country into line behind W even more.

Sorry to disappoint, Nick, but most of the rank-and-file I know (& am part of) are hoping the terrorists had nothing to with this crash

[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: Busigoth ]

We're The Great Old Ones Now

16:01 / 12.11.01

I doubt very much they're the ones I'm talking about.

It is possible that Americans from Nowhere, Illinois are far more sophisticated and xenophile than Brits from Assend, Wiltshire, but it seems unlikely to me.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

16:02 / 12.11.01

And this has nothing to do with 'disappointment', either. Thanks for painting me as an evil swine, though. Much appreciated.

16:28 / 12.11.01

Chill. This thread's bigger than our misunderstandings.

This is an awful thing to have happened.

16:47 / 12.11.01

No survivors, it seems...

17:41 / 12.11.01

Cherry....

The '79 crash near O'Hare was a big 'ol United DC 10. Just missed all those gasoline storage tanks north of the airport!

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

04:26 / 13.11.01

This is dreadful. Let's hope it's an accident (although I nearly punched a guy in the pub yesterday afternoon when he said that the probability of it being an accident made it "okay").
Shit. Bad year, huh?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

04:26 / 13.11.01

No. Actually, it's a moderate year, by historical standards. Some truly lousy things have happened, though.

19:05 / 13.11.01

Ey, I don't git you people.

"Let's hope it was an accident."

Oh, 265 people died - but it's O.K. because it was an accident. A fooking plane fell out of the sky - but it's O.K. because it's an accident.

Right.

I don't bloody care if it was terrorism or not. A fooking plane fell out of the sky and killed 265 people. You don't hope it was an accident or not. What does it matter to those 265 dead people?

And mind you, if it was an accident, that still doesn't explain the F-15.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4297478,00.html

quote:The Pentagon has confirmed that it had been aware of a problem with the flight and had an F-15 fighter plane in the area, but it could not reach the plane before it crashed.

Gee there were no "unusual communications" from the plane, or so Ari Fleischer said during yesterday's White House press conf. So how did the Pentagon know there was a problem?

The Return Of Rothkoid

09:04 / 14.11.01

Calm down, Enamon. I don't think anyone's happy that an aircraft full of people went down - rather, there's a sense of comparative relief because it looks (so far) like it wasn't a terrorist attack. Meaning that the threat of a pissed-off act or retaliation involving nukes is unlikely. Hence, it's OK, inasmuch as anything like this can be OK. If you're in a car crash, and could've died but get away with a busted leg, then presumably you'd think you were OK, comparatively speaking.

Re: the F-15. I think I read yesterday (on CNN or the BBC) that the F-15 was involved in routine patrols of the airspace; if these have been common since 9/11, then there's probably no reason for it to be specifically explained as it's a matter of routine. As for the "how did they know it was in trouble" bit, I heard on a newscast last night, that the pilot of the airliner had dumped a lot of fuel pretty soon after takeoff - anyone at the airport watching the takeoff (and I'm imagining that there would at least have been one person eyeballing it, or keeping in contact)would probably have noticed this. It may have even been reported by the pilot of the flight. Given the current atmosphere within the airline industry, I'd imagine that anyone who farts off-schedule is reported to the Pentagon - hence, them being appraised of the situation would probably not be unusual.

I just think the conspiracy angle is a bit premature, that's all.

[ 14-11-2001: Message edited by: Rothkoid ]

09:30 / 14.11.01

First off, what conspiracy angle? I did not say anything that suggested that I thought it was a conspiracy. All I did was ask a question. Do not assume.

Also,
quote:rather, there's a sense of comparative relief because it looks (so far) like it wasn't a terrorist attack. Meaning that the threat of a pissed-off act or retaliation involving nukes is unlikely. Hence, it's OK, inasmuch as anything like this can be OK. If you're in a car crash, and could've died but get away with a busted leg, then presumably you'd think you were OK, comparatively speaking.

But that analogy doesn't hold here. ALL the people on that plane died. No survivors. It is NOT ok. People died because an airplane crashed. That's it. Saying that it's OK seems to excuse the event a bit. It's better to say that "a plane crashed and 265 people died" then to say "a plane crashed and 265 people died but hey if it was a terrorist act it could've been worse." No it couldn't. The plane went down. All those people are dead. Wether it was a terrorist act or not wouldn't change the fact that all these people are dead one bit. I'd like to hear people say that "It doesn't seem to be a terrorist attack" instead of "I hope it isn't a terrorist attack." Because the latter says that because it wasn't a terrorist attack but an accident then it's ok that 265 people died. If a major earthquake hit NYC and brought down the twin towers instead of any hijacked planes would that make it OK?

The Return Of Rothkoid

09:56 / 14.11.01

Enamon: the end of your post (to me) does infer the existence of a conspiracy, or at least some hidden process, or answer to your question of how the Pentagon would've known what was going on. Sounds like the beginnings of conspiracy to me.

Also: you seem to wilfully be missing the point about the whole "accident" deal. Did I say that it was a good thing there's no survivors? Or that it makes a difference to those on the plane that are dead? Nope. Merely that, in the current climate, things are not going to be escalated to edge-of-destruction retribution-style behaviours if the plane has come down because of a part failure.

Others have talked about how people have reacted badly when the Anthrax cases started appearing. I was merely trying to explain how to people who are already edgy about the prospect of annihlation would much rather - though this makes no difference to anyone on the plane that crashed - that the cause of the tragedy be simple mechanical failure (which will incur an investigation and followup) rather than an explicit act of terrorism (which could incur a major military response). It's NOT OK that people died - that goes without saying; I think that as an immediate reaction, people are going to give thanks that it wasn't another aggressive act in US airspace - but I don't think that that necessarily follows from that that anyone thinks that having 250+ people dead it's a good thing. It's pretty uncharitable of you to assume that, frankly.

Of course, if someone does think like that, then maybe your dim view of human reaction is pretty apt.

Page: 1(2)3