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

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

[Arkinsaw]

What makes you think it was for show ?

How many aircraft that have entered restricted airspace since 911 have been shot down by CAP? None. They fly through the restricted airspace and then land and the FBI questions them. Its for show.

Your point appears to be that you would have been happier if WE had killed some wayward Americans to prove a point to the terrorists.

Thats nice twisting. If the choice is between the passengers on Flight 93 and the Capitol dome or the White House, I'd sadly say that the White House or Capitol would be greater losses to the nation. Luckily, the people on board pretty much felt the same apparently and handled it themselves. The fact that 3,400 incidents of entering restricted airspace occurred shows that we have a problem.

[Arkinsaw]

Ya'll just got YTMNDed. LOL, It is funny. http://freepfollies.ytmnd.com/

HTTP 404 NOT FOUND isn't that entertaining really.

[oceanview]

I can't carry toothpaste onto a commercial plane.

But you can load anything onto a small plane, and fly without restriction, anywhere.

something is wrong with this picture.

[nevergore]

Total flight restrictions are normally reserved over strategic targets or dangerous flight areas (ex. bombing ranges etc.)

Most major cities have primary airports and are considered class B airspace and have controlled airspace restrictions as such....

[BigSkyFreeper]

They had to have a working and functioning mode C transponder. So ATC knew exactly where they were, whether they were talking to them or not it wouldn't have made any difference at all, Zero, zip, nada.

Of course ATC knew where they were, in fact, ATC said they received a mayday distress call because of fuel problems on the plane, shortly before the plane slammed into the building. And if indeed there was low fog in the area because of rapidly changing weather conditions, they shouldn't have been under VFR flight rules.

[CarryaBigStick]

"..But no tutoring can make me think that it is wise to allow aircraft to "circle the Statue of Liberty" without rather significant restrictions..."

Ahhh, come on now, that was a gift from the French; and the last I heard they wanted it back anyways. ;-)

[LeGrande]

Did they know who they were? Who the passenger was?

I have never flown in NYC. But I have flown in a lot of class B airspace, and the normal procedure even outside of Class B, is to utilize flight following. Then the ATC knows who you are and where you are going. They may not know exactly who is on board, but are you likely going to tell them that you are a terrorist?

I would say that 1 protected place is better than 0...5 protected places is better than 1.

It is simply sad that you think that it is important to put a couple of phlanxes around the Statue of Liberty so that sight see'ers (sp) can't enjoy it.

I think personal entertainment is one area probably worth giving up a little of for the security of your country...but thats just me I guess.

Hopefully it's just you. I fear that way to many people are willing to give up too much for a little perceived "safety."

To me the idea of protecting the Statue of liberty with a missile system or phalanx is repugnant on many different levels. Restricting freedom to protect a symbol that stands for freedom is idiotic. I would rather see a terrorist blow it up than lose any iota of freedom because of it.

The day America takes our freedom away to protect the symbol of freedom is the day I am no longer an American.

[Arkinsaw]

Of course ATC knew where they were, in fact, ATC said they received a mayday distress call because of fuel problems on the plane, shortly before the plane slammed into the building. And if indeed there was low fog in the area because of rapidly changing weather conditions, they shouldn't have been under VFR flight rules.

What is in place to assure that the occupant of the plane was a Lidle and not an Atta? I ask because I do not know. The plane could have just as easily veered off and hit the Empire State Building. We've taken measures to secure commercial cockpits and we know who the pilots are. Have there been measures to verify identity of GA pilots flying around New York? If not, thats seems like trouble waiting to happen.

[CarryaBigStick]

There are plenty of restrictions and regs on small planes. There's a whole lot more destructive power capable of being loaded in your car (heck, in your car alone) than there is in my plane. You and a lot of other folks really need to study this issue a lot more.

I can't believe I'm hearing this on a conservative forum, I expect a lot more informed opinion here...

[BigSkyFreeper]

Total flight restrictions are normally reserved over strategic targets or dangerous flight areas (ex. bombing ranges etc.)

There are many areas where commercial and civilian aircraft are not allowed below a certain altitude because of dangerous flight areas, or military training areas, usually in close proximity of military bases.Most major cities have primary airports and are considered class B airspace and have controlled airspace restrictions as such....

Washington, DC is one such area where small planes are not allowed over. There are many large airports that don't even allow small aircraft under a certain weight limit to land on their runways in most cases. Denver International is one such airport, Wold-Chamberlin in Minneapolis/St. Paul is another, and Sky Harbor in Phoenix is another.

[conservative in nyc]

There was a low ceiling (1800 feet or so), but no fog or rain at the time of the crash. Unless the plane was somehow damaged, there shouldn't have been any fuel problems - the plane had just taken off from Teterboro about 15 minutes before the crash. Teterboro is less than 10 miles from Manhattan.

[Texaggie79]

It was funny, but I guess the mods pulled it.

[BigSkyFreeper]

What is in place to assure that the occupant of the plane was a Lidle and not an Atta? I ask because I do not know.

A terrorist isn't going to be yelling "MAYDAY!" into his radio that he's got a fuel problem.

[oceanview]

important buildings are protected against car/truck bombs - underground garages have been closed in many cases, concrete barriers near entrances, streets closed, etc. a plane can fly into a building without restrictions.

nobody is talking about "banning small planes" - but there need to be more restrictions on allowable flight routes around major cities for sure.

[Arkinsaw]

They may not know exactly who is on board

Then thats an obvious problem. If you have people able to fly around the Statue of Liberty at will without any ability to know who they are...thats a problem.

It is simply sad that you think that it is important to put a couple of phlanxes around the Statue of Liberty so that sight see'ers (sp) can't enjoy it.

There you go again. Sightseers can purchase a ticket on an authorized tourist plane with known pilots and security. Another fallacious argument. I put forward restrictions on aircraft in the airspace...you twist to be a restriction on tourists seeing the Statue of Liberty. Twisty, but not logic.

Hopefully it's just you. I fear that way to many people are willing to give up too much for a little perceived "safety."

And again, your personal entertainment at being able to fly around potential terrorist targets of national importance is not some huge assault on liberty and not too much to give up for protecting those icons. Buy a ticket if you want to see it. If you want to fly, do it elsewhere. Not a huge burden on liberty despite your wish to zoom the Statue.

To me the idea of protecting the Statue of liberty with a missile system or phalanx is repugnant on many different levels. Restricting freedom to protect a symbol that stands for freedom is idiotic. I would rather see a terrorist blow it up than lose any iota of freedom because of it.

I would prefer that you fly for fun elsewhere rather than see the Statue of Liberty blown up. Other readers will have to decide for themselves which is more important to them.

The day America takes our freedom away to protect the symbol of freedom is the day I am no longer an American.

This might make sense if the liberty we were talking about was you freedom to speak here or your freedom of religion or something actually critical. But the freedom we are talking about here is your ability to fly around the Statue of Liberty for fun. You are right now restricted from landing a helicopter for fun on the White House lawn. I do not consider that a huge imposition leading to the destruction of our glorious nation. You might characterize it that way, but it wouldn't be so.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I figured Teterboro was where it originated from because it's the only airport within close proximity of NYC that allows planes of that size to land and take off from. Just got done watching the 10p.m. newscast on WPIX and it looks like it's been raining pretty good in the NYC area. The Mets/Cards game was called off tonight too.

[Arkinsaw]

A terrorist isn't going to be yelling "MAYDAY!" into his radio that he's got a fuel problem.

I actually meant "what is in place to assure that it is not a terrorist on board BEFORE they are crashing into something". Sorry if that was unclear, but I sorta meant before takeoff. Thanks.

[conservative in nyc]

The rain came in about 4PM or 5PM. It wasn't raining in Manhattan at 2:45 when the plane hit the building.