View Full Version : Air Force One photo op causes thousands to flee NYC buildings in terror
I haven't noticed this (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/air_force_one_photo_op_over_ny.html) brought up anywhere, which is surprising....
Basically, someone in the Obama administration decided it would be nice to have pictures of Air Force One flying over the Statue of Liberty. They apparently notified a few city officials -not the mayor- and also asked the people they did tell to keep the flight a secret. So, what people saw when they looked out their office windows was a 747 flying extremely low and right towards the city....
https://img142.imageshack.us/img142/5845/largelawflyingjerseycit.jpg
Corzine said the state is determined to learn more about the "photo op" that led thousands of workers -- still haunted by the memories of 9/11 -- to flee their high-rise office buildings at the unexpected sight of the huge, low-flying passenger jet over the Hudson River.
Many people were understandably scared by this, having lived thru 9/11 and thousands of them fled their office buildings in terror, fearing an attack.
So who in the administration thought this was a good idea, and why aren't they fire?
Second, why do people get so worked up over executive bonuses and not over the government spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a nice photo? There's this new thing out, called photoshop- I know it's pricey, but I'm pretty sure it's cheaper than flying a jumbo jet around. :yes:
Crazed Rabbit
04-29-2009, 06:03
Basically, someone in the Obama administration decided it would be nice to have pictures of Air Force One flying over the Statue of Liberty. They apparently notified a few city officials -not the mayor- and also asked ordered and threatened the people they did tell to keep the flight a secret.
Corrected! (http://wcbstv.com/topstories/air.force.one.2.996457.html)
CR
A Very Super Market
04-29-2009, 06:13
It is also silly that they are flying an empty jumbo jet around, days after Earth Day.
Alexander the Pretty Good
04-29-2009, 07:56
Well if Corzine's getting to the bottom of this...
whoever's responsible is completely safe unless driving with him.
Stupid but the reaction is rather amusing. AWW MY GAWD!!1!, keeping it cool ain't the New Yorker's forte it seams :laugh4:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN57C98B310
Well, I can see how it might have been somewhat scary if you were in a tall building but then what do you do if you live close to the approach of JFK? Get a heart attack every 5 minutes?
Yes, wasn't very clever to keep it a secret but then if it had been public and someone actually shot it down, people would have complained that they didn't keep it secret. :dizzy2:
Tribesman
04-29-2009, 09:32
Did thousands of people flee their offices in panic when the airliner made its landing in the river ?
Did thousands of people flee their offices in panic when the airliner made its landing in the river ?
Are you going to compare the heroic efforts of a pilot to STOP a jet from crashing into buildings with the administration's wastefull and ill-considered decision to fly a massive jet that close to the site of such a disaster so that they could take some photos? Sorry Tribes, but it doesn't hold water. (no pun intended)
HoreTore
04-29-2009, 09:46
Are you going to compare the heroic efforts of a pilot to STOP a jet from crashing into buildings with the administration's wastefull and ill-considered decision to fly a massive jet that close to the site of such a disaster so that they could take some photos? Sorry Tribes, but it doesn't hold water. (no pun intended)
Uhm..... What? I'm pretty sure you missed the point completely...
Forget the pilots, they have nothing to do with it, unless of course you believe that the people in tall buildings are able to read his mind. So, what we have are two situations of a low-flying aircraft in NYC. This one caused panic. Did the other one cause panic? If not, why not? Or rather, why did this one cause a stir?
It's not like anyone can look at a low-flying plane and say "oh my, that's a brave and heroic pilot about to save a dozen or lives", or "oh my, Obama's out flashing his cash again"....
Uhm..... What? I'm pretty sure you missed the point completely...
Forget the pilots, they have nothing to do with it, unless of course you believe that the people in tall buildings are able to read his mind. So, what we have are two situations of a low-flying aircraft in NYC. This one caused panic. Did the other one cause panic? If not, why not? Or rather, why did this one cause a stir?
It's not like anyone can look at a low-flying plane and say "oh my, that's a brave and heroic pilot about to save a dozen or lives", or "oh my, Obama's out flashing his cash again"....
I am pretty sure that there WAS a lot of panic with the Hudson case, but it was over really quickly, where as Obama's jet circled for a long time and people had no idea what was gonna happen.
Did thousands of people flee their offices in panic when the airliner made its landing in the river ?
I'm pretty sure some were frightened, but the scale is a little different. A 747 is more than 100ft longer, 80ft wider and weighs about 10x as much as an A320.
Also, if you're going to be scaring people, I think that an actual emergency is a far better reason than a photo op. I mean, plane crashes usually do involve people being scared- almost by definition. :shrug:
I'm pretty sure some were frightened, but the scale is a little different. A 747 is more than 100ft longer, 80ft wider and weighs about 10x as much as an A320.
Also, if you're going to be scaring people, I think that an actual emergency is a far better reason than a photo op. I mean, plane crashes usually do involve people being scared- almost by definition. :shrug:
My point exactly (though more eloquently put to be sure). Also, do think of the time difference. The A320 wooshed by and that was all. The 747 was circling for a long time, giving plenty of people a chance to see it, and no doubt making wonder about its purpose.
spending hundreds of thousands of dollars
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Security & organisation, two f16 on the tail, easily.
Louis VI the Fat
04-29-2009, 11:20
I saw this on the news. Incredible. Who in their right mind would think that flying around a huge airplane below skyscraper level in NY would be a good idea!? Without proper notification of the populace? What, they were on Mars the past decade and missed the news or something?
The News of the Weird thread carried a similar story about Sydney, (Melbourne?) some time ago. I think it was a military excersize involving a low flying aircraft over Sydney harbour, without proper advance notification. It created a lot of panic, anger afterwards. That's the other side of the world. To pull this stunt in lower Manhattan beggers belief.
So who in the administration thought this was a good idea, and why aren't they fired?
Who? Someone in the lower levels of the air force. Apparantly, this someone still followes the directives of the Bush' administration. Namely, that in the interest of 'Homeland Security' the balance between governmental secrecy and citizen's rights should be unreasonably shifted towards the government.
Obama is furious. Rightfully so. I even wonder, did someone in the air force pull this stunt to obstruct the administration? I mean, their explanation for the order of secrecy is that they hoped to keep this secret. That is, fly in, get a picture, and be gone without anybody noticing it. Like, nobody would notice a low flying 747? :inquisitive:
Maybe the hope was that, as always, in some time the details of a story will be forgotten. And that all that would linger in the public's memory is 'Obama's plane circling around NY for fun!!1! Insensitive! Obama administration has no respect for 9-11! Unpatriotic! Obama doesn't care for homeland security!'
I'm pretty sure some were frightened, but the scale is a little different. A 747 is more than 100ft longer, 80ft wider and weighs about 10x as much as an A320.
So you mean the president's machine would be even easier to identify from the ground? Or does noone in the US know what the air force one looks like?
So you mean the president's machine would be even easier to identify from the ground? Or does noone in the US know what the air force one looks like?
Look at the picture at the top of the page and tell me, if you were that guy, do you think that you would have recognised it?
Tribesman
04-29-2009, 13:00
I'm pretty sure some were frightened, but the scale is a little different. A 747 is more than 100ft longer, 80ft wider and weighs about 10x as much as an A320.
So the 320 is more like the planes used on 9/11 then
Banquo's Ghost
04-29-2009, 13:00
Stupid but the reaction is rather amusing. AWW MY GAWD!!1!, keeping it cool ain't the New Yorker's forte it seams :laugh4:
I think that's a little harsh. After the events of September 2001, I think it's an entirely understandable reaction. I remember the harrowing film by those French photographers that captured the plane flying overhead as they recorded a normal workday for the Fire department - and the sheer horror that dawned as it went straight into the tower.
The flyover seems utterly crass and deeply insensitive. There is absolutely no reason why this couldn't have been publicised, or better done elsewhere. It will be interesting to see who authorised the flight.
Well it's a bit much, maybe we have icewater instead of blood but nobody would react like that here, would you? Nor in England by the way, was at Kings Cross station, there was a bomb alert, everybody just calmly walked to the exit, no need to run around in circles. Americans appear to be a little twitchy.
Well it's a bit much, maybe we have icewater instead of blood but nobody would react like that here, would you? Nor in England by the way, was at Kings Cross station, there was a bomb alert, everybody just calmly walked to the exit, no need to run around in circles. Americans appear to be a little twitchy.
What the victims of 911 suffered was completely horrible. I can understand evacuating buildings when there is a completely unexplained, massive jet flying at that level. Who would want to take a chance?
KukriKhan
04-29-2009, 13:29
I just wanna see the photos obtained at such a price - and hope the photog didn't forget to take the lens-cap off.
What the victims of 911 suffered was completely horrible. I can understand evacuating buildings when there is a completely unexplained, massive jet flying at that level. Who would want to take a chance?
That I fully understand,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN57C98B310
^- that I don't, it tickles my ffs-get-a-hold-of-yourself
Tribesman
04-29-2009, 13:34
Frag has a point there Banquo , you lived over the water for a good few years didn't you ,how many terrorism incidents/scares did you go through .
The reactions in NY I have experienced during attacks/suspected attacks is completely different from those I experienced in Britain .
I just wanna see the photos obtained at such a price
It was done on the cheap Kukri , they combined the photo op with a regular training exercise .
Rhyfelwyr
04-29-2009, 13:35
This is an epic facepalm moment.
I don't understand why anyone would defend this, it is enough to make Bush look intelligent.
Banquo's Ghost
04-29-2009, 13:37
Well it's a bit much, maybe we have icewater instead of blood but nobody would react like that here, would you? Nor in England by the way, was at Kings Cross station, there was a bomb alert, everybody just calmly walked to the exit, no need to run around in circles. Americans appear to be a little twitchy.
Perhaps, perhaps not. It ought to be remembered that a lot of the those who stayed stoically in the Twin Towers died when the second plane hit, and more later when they actually collapsed (despite the widespread belief that they couldn't collapse).
I consider myself pretty unflappable, yet I flinch at loud bangs like car backfires because of some experiences. I wouldn't disparage people who have gone through or even heard about the events of 11th September for a reaction to that flyover, least of all because of how deeply I feel the events of that day and I wasn't even on the same continent.
EDIT:
Frag has a point there Banquo , you lived over the water for a good few years didn't you ,how many terrorism incidents/scares did you go through .
The reactions in NY I have experienced during attacks/suspected attacks is completely different from those I experienced in Britain .
I understand what you are saying, but one can get used to these events much more when they are expected and regular. The US had not been attacked quite like that before and one must admit, it was far greater in scale than most of the stuff we had to put up with. I just don't think it is fair to compare the experiences, especially in a way that seems to mock New Yorkers for some kind of lacking fortitude.
Louis VI the Fat
04-29-2009, 13:46
Americans appear to be a little twitchy.Come on, Frags. You're being unemphatic to the point of being insensitive.
Like, you know...last time an airplane flew there several thousand died and stuff? (<- denotes US-style question mark pronunciation)
If I were a New Yorker, I'd be more than a bit twitchy about a plane, chased by two jets, flying back and forth four times at low altitude.
More in general, apart from the horror, what struck me during 9-11 was actually the very calmness of New Yorkers. Disciplined, composed, practical. This, not their twitchyness stands out for me.
It will be interesting to see who authorised the flight. I was wondering about thaat as well. Here's an extensive article in the
NYT (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/air-force-one-backup-rattles-new-york-nerve/).
Maybe the old wisdom holds true: don't ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
At least they were not trampling each other and stuff. :P While I hope I would have remained calmer and been more logical in that situation, you have to remember that they were very confused, and there was no logical explaination as to why a jet that size would be flying around that low except that there could be another horrible repeat of 911. Their reaction really wasn't 'over the top'.
Their reaction really wasn't 'over the top'.
I disagree, they just panic, just start running, towards the crash had there been one. Running towards buildings when you are in the open without any glass around you, good thinking.
KukriKhan
04-29-2009, 14:31
It was done on the cheap Kukri , they combined the photo op with a regular training exercise .
Heh. We did that once (or similar): tasked to permanently move 2 Mil Pol companies from Calif to Tacoma in 90 days, we encountered so much red tape and bureaucratic crap that we almost gave up. Then the Ops NCO had a *flash*: Conduct a Field Training Exercise (FTX), ostensibly practicing convoy protection, from San Fran to Fort Lewis.
And just never come back. So we did, and didn't. Worked like a charm, and was actually cheaper, and quicker, than going the "permanent change of station" route.
So, yeah, I can see (from an Air Force point of view) the way to cover this is to call it an exercise in evasive maneuvers for AF1, and "chase-and-target" for the f16's. Brilliant, in an accounting sense.
Still... I wanna see the photos.
Heh. We did that once (or similar): tasked to permanently move 2 Mil Pol companies from Calif to Tacoma in 90 days, we encountered so much red tape and bureaucratic crap that we almost gave up. Then the Ops NCO had a *flash*: Conduct a Field Training Exercise (FTX), ostensibly practicing convoy protection, from San Fran to Fort Lewis.
And just never come back. So we did, and didn't. Worked like a charm, and was actually cheaper, and quicker, than going the "permanent change of station" route.
So, yeah, I can see (from an Air Force point of view) the way to cover this is to call it an exercise in evasive maneuvers for AF1, and "chase-and-target" for the f16's. Brilliant, in an accounting sense.
Still... I wanna see the photos.
Nah, they were just teaching the pilot to fly in circles. ~;)
seireikhaan
04-29-2009, 16:11
I'm pretty darn confuzzled as to who on earth thought this was a brilliant idea. Personally, I think if they wanted a photo of air force one with Lady Liberty, they should have just photoshopped it. :idea2:
Hooahguy
04-29-2009, 17:38
also, doesnt AF1 have to follow the prez around? so if theres an emergency he can get on ASAP. it would be horrible if there was a disaster as that pilot was doing his shinanegans up there.
Interesting, NYPD knew about it (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nyscar2812702437apr27,0,6680181.story), the 911 dispatchers knew about it, the State Government knew about it. The Mayor's "event coordination and management director" knew. So why didn't Bloomberg? And why were police and emergency services told not to alert the public? And who exactly signed off on this?
The person falling on his sword over this is Louis Caldera, director of the White House Military Office. Hard to tell if he's really the person responsible, though. For some reason people have been getting mad at the FAA, so I wonder if something was greenlit there. Interesting.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-29-2009, 18:48
Good for them. Thousands of people in Manhattan, having faced the possibility of death, now have a renewed appreciation for life. You can almost feel the goodwill towards there fellow men bubbling up inside the hearts of every New Yorker.
Tribesman
04-29-2009, 19:13
just don't think it is fair to compare the experiences, especially in a way that seems to mock New Yorkers for some kind of lacking fortitude.
Hey I don't mock new yorkers (unless they are presnt and I wish to take the piss out of them) , but 9/11 gave very mixed reactions from the crowd (mainly disbelief) , by the time of anthrax it was just a bunch of annoying panicing headless chichens running like crazy and making it hard for me to get where I had to go (OK they didn't make it that hard for me if I was willing to leave the missus behind , but hey I wouldn't abandon the poor creature on the way to the pub in a crisis no matter how many panic stricken new yorkers are trying to rush downwind in a blind panic)
also, doesnt AF1 have to follow the prez around?
It wasn't airforce 1
Hooahguy
04-29-2009, 20:01
It wasn't airforce 1
...it wasnt? so why is everyone saying AF1?
Tribesman
04-29-2009, 20:17
...it wasnt? so why is everyone saying AF1?
It be becausen they do be slightly thick like all them human beans do be:idea2:
HoreTore
04-29-2009, 20:22
...it wasnt? so why is everyone saying AF1?
It was the backup plane.
Hooahguy
04-29-2009, 20:22
nm.
A plane is called Air Force One only when it is operated by the USAF and the President is on board. Just like any aircraft (helo) operated by the USMC is called Marine One, but only when carrying the President. This is just the air traffic control call sign while flying, the aircraft themselves have unique tail numbers. Air Force Two is the ATC call sign of whatever USAF plane is carrying the Vice President.
There are 2 VC-25s (747s) that normally carry the president around, this was one of them. The other was probably parked at Andrews AFB, ready for duty.
KukriKhan
04-30-2009, 12:53
I'm just amazed: it's been over 48 hours, and it's not yet George Bush's fault.
edit, nvm, way to graphic
Gregoshi
04-30-2009, 13:06
I'm just amazed: it's been over 48 hours, and it's not yet George Bush's fault.
Still, we must remain vigilant.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-30-2009, 18:34
I'm just amazed: it's been over 48 hours, and it's not yet George Bush's fault.
Too late, Kukri-san. Schumer was already sniping about the FAA being part of the problem for having been run by a "political hack" under the previous admin (position is as yet unfilled in the new admin). So, we can take comfort in the fact that W malfed this one too.
I am almost of the belief that we made a mistake outlawing the Code Duello. I suspect that a bit of Burr v Hamilton action would clarify our political snarls a touch -- or at least leave cleaner wounds on the combatants.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.