UPDATE: Aircraft hit building at 71st and York Ave on East Side of Manhattan

Rush Limbaugh Show ^ | 10/11/06 | Rush Limbaugh

[Yossarian]

Rush reports that a Cessna has been reported as crashing into (at least one) apartment complex in NYC Mannhattan's upper east side - on East 71st Street.

[Arkinsaw]

It is very easy for the military to identify their own planes. The only method a phalanx sitting on top of Miss liberty has to identify the friendlies is the squawk code. Do you suppose that could be spoofed? You really haven't thought this through have you.

I have been advocating that a very limited number of commercial tourist aircraft be allowed to approach. Those, and their scheduled times, should be fairly easy for air defense people to identify.

There are some legitimate, no fly zones, and I don't have a problem with them. I do object to unannounced TFR's like when Cheney makes a surprise visit to Jackson, or Bush doesn't announce his travel plans until an hour before the event. It is kind of like the freedom to drive doesn't give you the right to travel in the oncoming traffic lane.

I advocate making the Statue of Liberty a legitimate no fly zone also.

I do object if you want to restrict my right to go view the fall colors if I want to though.

I do want to restrict your right to view the Fall Colors over say....Camp David. But not everywhere. There are areas where the need to defend them is more important than your sightseeing. Really there are.

[af_vet_rr]

I don't believe a reaction like thinking it's terrorism is based on fear. More like being based on clear and present danger.

When the odds are that it's not terrorism (aircraft crash all the time), and when the circumstances (light plane plus a residential building on a weekday afternoon) don't make for a high-profile terrorist target, and the reaction is that it's terrorism, that's fear.

My area newspaper played up the terrorist angle this morning, as did many others, as well as web and broadcast media - the whole "this sparked fears of another terrorist attack even though it was Yankees pitcher so-and-so" thing. There is no mistaking that the media tried to play on peoples' fears, and the media found plenty of people who were scared of terrorists.

Like I said, I probably come across as harsh, and maybe it's my background, but I don't worry about terrorists at all.

At my age, I know that I have more to fear from my prostate or my heart or some idiot talking on their cellphone and running a red light and t-boning me than I do from a terrorist.

[Arkinsaw]

3 on Nimitz and Dwight D. Eisenhower and 4 on Vinson and later ships of the class. British carriers also have them, I think some of theirs is a Dutch Phalanx system and some are ours.

[af_vet_rr]

Actually thinking about it as a serious worry in your day-to-day life is a waste of time and energy. And, having lived in the city, I knew nobody who spent a significant amount of time in Manhattan that worried about terrorism. Living in NY is far more stress than you need, as is. Why really spend the energy worrying about lightning killing you? Or terrorists?

Exactly. Odds are, my body or some idiot not paying attention is going to do me in long before any terrorist.

I have a distorted perspective, I must admit - I have relatives serving in the Middle East, including a child that flies into and out of Iraq and Afghanistan frequently (and I know they get shot at often, even if it's just some radical(s) a long ways away shooting off a clip or two from their AK), and I have a nephew in the Marines in Iraq right now, who has been wounded and who has had fellow Marines killed literally within five feet of him.

I would feel pathetic if I worried about terrorists, because they actually have to deal with terrorists every single day. I would feel like a coward when I measured myself next to them, if I went around with an attitude of fear.

They are over there risking their lives so that we don't have to be afraid of terrorists.

Unfortunately, the media sought out people who were scared of terrorists, even long after the idenitities of the people involved were known, and that probably reinforced other peoples' fears.

[narby]

It would be at the very least difficult if not impossible for any individual to purchase such large quantities without being noticed.

My example I've been using was gasoline. You ever hear of "self service"? Fill the lobby of a typical high rise with a truck full of burning gasoline or diesel and the results would be nasty.

Contrast that with a small plane.

Ok, same problem you state above. Whatever dangerous material used must be acquired, except it has to be delivered inside the fence of an airport where curious line crew and other pilots are already spooked that their occupation might be ended by just one terrorist taking a plane and the uneducated public then demanding that the right of citizens to fly be ended.

Several years ago an NBC undercover news crew tried to rent a helicopter (with pilot) where they would be taken to a spot where they would simulate taking over the chopper for deadly purposes. Guess what, they didn't even make it into the air before the charter company got suspicious and called in the FBI who confronted the news crew.

The terrorist would take a few courses, fill the gas tank and load as much explosives the maximum weight of the plane allows and then fly the plane.

Hey Einstein, how much explosives can a four seat aircraft carry vs. a U-Haul truck? Answer: the U-Haul carries *much* more. And it can be driven into the lobby of any building, anywhere, at any time.

You ever heard of the Beirut truck bomb vs. the Marines? Ever heard of Timmy McVey? Guess what genius, they didn't use airplanes for a reason. Except for 9/11, I can't remember airplanes *ever* being used to crash into something, and even then the damage was great only because they were extremely large airplanes, with thousands of gallons of fuel that almost no other airplane could carry.

Keep trying to think. LOL. You're being this dense on purpose. Right?

[narby]

I advocate making the Statue of Liberty a legitimate no fly zone also.

Why just the statue of liberty? After that you'd protect the Empire State Building, then Yankee Stadium, the St. Louis Arch, Golden Gate Bridge, on and on and on.

I don't think there are phalanx guns even in Washington DC with the huge ADIZ around it. The ADIZ is only there to give a few minutes warning time so they can get the President into the bunker. If they used a Phalanx in the center of the city, the returning 20mm rounds would likely kill more people on the ground than a terrorist in a four seat airplane. Fire a Phalanx from Liberty Island and the rounds come down where? In Manhattan, New Jersey, or Staten Island? There's a huge oil depot right on the river in New Jersey, what happens if rounds flame it while firing and killing some poor lost airman?

The politician that takes responsibility for such a deadly weapon being installed for use protecting a decorated pile of copper is the politician that will be in discrace at the funeral of innocent bystanders killed by your high speed Phalanx gun. They'll never install it because it's a dumb idea.

[Arkinsaw]

Guess what genius, they didn't use airplanes for a reason. Except for 9/11, I can't remember airplanes *ever* being used to crash into something, and even then the damage was great only because they were extremely large airplanes, with thousands of gallons of fuel that almost no other airplane could carry.

Nobody paid any attention to large airplanes really until after the fact. Just because something hasn't been used before does not mean there is not a threat. Grabbing half a dozen small aircraft and slamming them into certain targets could definitely be a major black eye. It is not something to be dismissed lightly just because it hasn't been done yet. I personally would not want it to occur on my watch or be down on record dismissing it as nothing.

There is also a difference between being afraid of terrorists and defending against them. Just because you defend against them does not mean that you are afraid of them. We have people in Anbar province right now who are definitely not afraid of much of anything...yet they still conduct permimeter security and watch for threats. Suggesting that setting up a defense equates to "scared" is not correct.

[Arkinsaw]

Why just the statue of liberty? After that you'd protect the Empire State Building, then Yankee Stadium, the St. Louis Arch, Golden Gate Bridge, on and on and on.

I don't think there are phalanx guns even in Washington DC with the huge ADIZ around it. The ADIZ is only there to give a few minutes warning time so they can get the President into the bunker. If they used a Phalanx in the center of the city, the returning 20mm rounds would likely kill more people on the ground than a terrorist in a four seat airplane. Fire a Phalanx from Liberty Island and the rounds come down where? In Manhattan, New Jersey, or Staten Island? There's a huge oil depot right on the river in New Jersey, what happens if rounds flame it while firing and killing some poor lost airman?

The politician that takes responsibility for such a deadly weapon being installed for use protecting a decorated pile of copper is the politician that will be in discrace at the funeral of innocent bystanders killed by your high speed Phalanx gun. They'll never install it because it's a dumb idea.

If there is another aviation attack against symbolic targets....yes they definitely will install air defenses next time.

And if General Aviation is involved in a major attack, then you probably won't be able to get to your private plane without an anal probe and 4 DNA samples.

We can argue about this as long as you want, but unrestricted General Aviation exists only as long as the terrorists don't take advantage of it. If they do, then you'll spend a year arguing that you should be allowed to takeoff again.

Better to institute reasonable restrictions before the fact.

[CarryaBigStick]

I do want to restrict your right to view the Fall Colors over say....Camp David. But not everywhere.

Camp David already has a retricted area over it. You're advocating a dangerous sort of incrementalism my friend. Have you even stopped to consider where all those 20mm depleted uranium projectiles from all those Phalanx guns are going to land while they shoot at a pipsqueek private aircraft? Your cure is much more dangerous than the problem.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin

[Arkinsaw]

Camp David already has a retricted area over it. You're advocating a dangerous sort of incrementalism my friend. Have you even stopped to consider where all those 20mm depleted uranium projectiles from all those Phalanx guns are going to land while they shoot at a pipsqueek private aircraft? Your cure is much more dangerous than the problem.

If you don't like the Phalanx idea, then you need to join the debate about how such an attack can be stopped. Arguing that nothing should be done because it interferes with your enjoyment is not going to get it. There is a recognizable problem with small aircraft having unrestricted access to high profile target areas. What is you solution if you do not like mine?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin

If you notice, Ben used the very important word "essential" in his quote. So far you have not proven that implementing restricted airspace around obvious targets is "essential" to anything other than sightseeing entertainment and that you "wanna do it".

[Old Professer]

They're easier to fly around than through.

Had his flight instructor on board, hope his name wasn't Ahmed.

[clamper1797]

16 was just yesterday ... and yet a million years ago. Life is WAY to short. I don't think I have smelled enough roses. I officially become a "senior citizen" in a couple of weeks ... a date I'm really not looking forward too

[CarryaBigStick]

If you don't like the Phalanx idea, then you need to join the debate about how such an attack can be stopped. Arguing that nothing should be done because it interferes with your enjoyment is not going to get it. There is a recognizable problem with small aircraft having unrestricted access to high profile target areas. What is you solution if you do not like mine?

This has more to do about freedom than it does about enjoyment. What's my solution to the problem? Courage. It used to be an 'essential' part of being an American, but we seem to have abdicated it somewhere along the way.

Franklin understood the dangers of incrementalism in the battle to preserve liberty. I think you're applying the wrong definition to the word 'essential' in his quote, and I was completely expecting that response from you.

[Pukin Dog]

Waaaawwww. Momma! They dont agree with me! Waaaaa!

[Man50D]

My example I've been using was gasoline. You ever hear of "self service"? Fill the lobby of a typical high rise with a truck full of burning gasoline or diesel and the results would be nasty.

Bad example #1. In order to use that much gas to fill all those barrels you will need to fill up the gas tank many times. This means you will need to siphon out the gas from the gas tank to refill. This refers back to my point all this gas will have to be stored somewhere requiring several trips to the storage area. A terrorist increases his chances of being caught. Especially in your example because that much gas stored in a small area is bound to omit a pungent smell and could easily ignite if a spark from an outside source comes in contact with the fumes.

Ok, same problem you state above. Whatever dangerous material used must be acquired, except it has to be delivered inside the fence of an airport where curious line crew and other pilots are already spooked that their occupation might be ended by just one terrorist taking a plane and the uneducated public then demanding that the right of citizens to fly be ended.

Bad example #2. Once a terrorist earns his private pilot's license he could fill up in the same manner as any other pilot. You also assume he would depart from a major airport that has security. Many owners of small aircraft park their planes at small private airports in rural areas with no security. Some do not have a tower. There is one approximately eight miles from where I live that does not have a tower. A lone terrorist could easily fill the tank with the normal procedure and load the plane with explosives without any witnesses.

Several years ago an NBC undercover news crew tried to rent a helicopter (with pilot) where they would be taken to a spot where they would simulate taking over the chopper for deadly purposes. Guess what, they didn't even make it into the air before the charter company got suspicious and called in the FBI who confronted the news crew.

Bad example #3. You have a very short memory. Yesterday's crash proves security would not stop a small plane flying in a highly populated area. It also disproves your example that obviously they could not foresee back then the type of situation that occurred yesterday.

Hey Einstein, how much explosives can a four seat aircraft carry vs. a U-Haul truck? Answer: the U-Haul carries *much* more. And it can be driven into the lobby of any building, anywhere, at any time.

Thank you for the comparison. You continue to ignore the very clear point I made in my post #1791 to you stating terrorists want a spectacular event. You don't need the amount of explosives in your example to cause a devastating attack. The fact a small aircraft could cause NORAD to scramble fighter jets to defend several cities throughout the U.S. and Canada illustrates how devastating the NORAD member countries considered yesterday's crash. You also ignore the point in my post #1888 it would require far more manual labor and take much longer to load a truck for a single terrorist with your example compared to the amount of labor and time required to fill the plane's gas tank and fill the interior with explosives.

You ever heard of the Beirut truck bomb vs. the Marines?

Bad Example #3. If you think the terrorist who drove that truck Also obtained, stored and loaded the truck with the 12,000 pounds of TNT used all by himself then you need a reality check. Keep in mind it was the largest non nuclear explosion ever seen by the FBI up to that point in time. No one could possibly plan and carry out such a massive attack by himself.

Ever heard of Timmy McVey?

Ever hear of Terry Nichols or Michael Fortier? McVeigh did not plan the attack by himself. Nichols and Foortier were his accomplices.

Guess what genius, they didn't use airplanes for a reason. Except for 9/11, I can't remember airplanes *ever* being used to crash into something, and even then the damage was great only because they were extremely large airplanes, with thousands of gallons of fuel that almost no other airplane could carry.

Guess what? Since 9/11/01 proves the terrorists have changed their tactics and now use airplanes! It should be very obvious to you by now 9/11/01 proves they are willing to use airplanes. You can't see the forest for the trees.

It's unfortunate you believe resorting to insults reinforces your points. On the contrary it shows how frustrated you have become but I encourage you to keep trying to think. Good luck!

[Arkinsaw]

This has more to do about freedom than it does about enjoyment.

I have pointed out where we restrict various freedoms right now, like landing helicopters on the White House lawn or driving your gas tanker up to the front of the White House just because you want to. Your defense against my argument is that restricting freedom is inherently bad and thus should not be done. You ignore what that argument means in the broad sense purposefully. Thats not logical argument. Unlimited individual freedom is anarchy and not a conservative philosophy. Even Ben Franklin would agree. You must argue instead that the restrictions I propose are unnecessarily burdensome and that the benefits of doing nothing outweigh the benefits of doing something. Just like it has been determined that security at the White House is more important than your right to enter a public place at will. You have not made that argument, you have relied on slogans.

What's my solution to the problem? Courage.

Courage does not mean doing nothing in the face of a threat. It is certainly courageous to stand toe to toe with someone and turn the cheek while they bash you with a stick. But its stupid courage.

It would be courageous for a US Marine to stand up in a firefight and give the enemy the finger. But it would be better if he were to shoot the enemy.

It would be courageous for us to take down the wall around the Green Zone in Baghdad and allow anyone to enter at will to show that we have no fear. But it would be also stupid and get a lot of people killed. Your arguments are sloganeering, not logic.

Franklin understood the dangers of incrementalism in the battle to preserve liberty. I think you're applying the wrong definition to the word 'essential' in his quote, and I was completely expecting that response from you.

Then you need to explain how being able to fly around the Statue of Liberty, White House, or Gateway Arch at will is essential rather than just say that my definition is wrong.

[Arkinsaw]

Wow, I can say I never expected the sort of reaction seen on this thread. Everybody becomes a Libertarian when its their particular drug in question.

[CarryaBigStick]

So, I'm obviously an addict. Thanks for the insight into your thought processes. I'm finished with this thread.

[Arkinsaw]

So, I'm obviously an addict. Thanks for the insight into your thought processes. I'm finished with this thread.

You are welcome.

[weegee]

It's like when someone says some savage murderer was "criminally insane" because he didn't respect society's mores and hacked and slashed people.

Of course one must be insane to behave like that, but it doesn't excuse the behavior.

TROP jihadists in America are all excused a "lone nuts" who aren't part of a larger association of like minded "nuts". Just because there is no coordinated or commanded attack ("you attack these people, and 'you' attack those people...") doesn't mean that the message isn't being preached to a sizeable number in America.

America never looked at Klan violence as the isolated behavior by a lone nut who "happened" to be part of a larger hate group.

Jihadists are supremacists too.