Tuesday, April 28, 2009
9/11 Photo-op follow-up
This is just cruel. Hilarious, but cruel. And there are a couple of good questions at the end of the post.
MORE: OK, just catching up here. The Feds knew the flyover could cause a panic and still ordered that the flight be kept secret? Brilliant, and not as the word is used in the Guinness ads.
More linkage here and here. And I simply love the questions about CO2 emissions -- Sing it along with me: "I'll believe global warming is a crisis when the people who say it is a crisis act like it is a crisis" -- and the request that we learn who the passengers were so we can run the names up in "Open Secrets." It will be very interesting to see whether there were any big fish on that plane.
13 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Apr 28, 10:22:00 PM:
I wasn't in Manhattan when this all went down and it's hard to tell from the low-res videos floating around, but couldn't anyone see that the plane was part of the presidential fleet? The livery is obviously very distinctive and the plane was flying pretty low. Did people just not notice or did they really think they were under attack from Air Force One?
By 
JPMcT, at
Tue Apr 28, 10:37:00 PM:
@ Anon
You are standing in an area where 3000 people died on a sunny morning in 2001 and a low flying "heavy" seemingly pursued by US fighter jets cruises toward you at 1500 ft above sea level.
You are going to stand there and read the livery?
And...if it seems to be a government plane....you are still going to stand there?
No...Anon...these people weren't stupid. I think they were acting pretty logically.
By , at
Tue Apr 28, 10:46:00 PM:
In a lot of the videos I've seen, people were staring at the plane for some time. The Air Force One planes are some of the most recognizable in the world. While I understand the emotional response, all it would have taken was for one person to see what was going on.
I obviously can't say what I would have done if I had been there. Still, I hope I would have had the presence of mind to notice that this was Air Force One and therefore unlikely to be a threat. None of this justifies the failure to announce the flight, of course, but I find it a little troubling that NYC apparently lives so close to the edge of hysteria.
By Brian, at
Wed Apr 29, 12:07:00 AM:
I think the tune you're actually singing is "I'll believe global warming is a crisis when every single person who says it is a crisis personally makes sacrifices first."
By Andrewdb, at
Wed Apr 29, 12:54:00 AM:
Wikipedia says there are 19 C-40s (737s), 2 C-25s (747s) and 2 C-32s (757s), so no, it isn't all that unique when there are at least 23 of them out there with that kind of livery - to say nothing of the G-IV type planes the 89th AW operates.
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 01:35:00 AM:
Ok Andrewdb, but why does it matter how many airplanes with the presidential livery there are? They're all under control of the Air Force. I find it incredibly implausible that anyone could believe terrorists somehow seized a plane from the 89th Air Wing with the intent to fly it into a building.
And the plane in question here was a 747, which has a well-known, distinctive shape (the hump). There are only two of those in the presidential fleet, both of which serve as Air Force One. I admit it might be asking a little much to expect people to notice that detail, but I still think the hysteria here is unwarranted.
By Gary Rosen, at
Wed Apr 29, 01:50:00 AM:
I hear Obama is very angry at the people responsible for this.
He must have a sign on his desk that says "The buck passes here".
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Apr 29, 06:31:00 AM:
Brian, it seems to me that no person would have had to make a sacrifice to avoid that photo op. All it would have required was a small amount of common sense. Not even saying it is a partisan thing -- Republican administrations have done the same sort of thing, no doubt. But an example of the waste, including environmental waste, that comes out of government.
But, more to the point, if you are campaigning to transform the energy economy of the United States and wrech its economy up and down with cap and trade, all in the name of reducing GHG regulations, ought you not take steps to avoid profligacy in the federal government, the one instrumentality that you actually control?
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Apr 29, 06:35:00 AM:
And, Brian, I actually believe the point. If you think GHGs will lead to catastrophe (as opposed to more mild consequences), and that is, after all, the basis for the argument for the policies to deal with AGW, why are you not doing what you can to avoid that catastrophe? So, yes, I do think that if you believe it is a crisis you should curtail your lifestyle before demanding the same of others, and that if you do not you simply do not believe what you say. I know I would do that.
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 09:27:00 AM:
Obama's first 100 days are the worst in presidential history. Absolute hypocritical worst.
I have never seen so many broken promises accomplished in such a short time in full view of a compliant and complacent media & a drugged electorate drunk on the cult of Obama's corrupt personality & tenure.
This Airforce 1 fiasco is simply the cherry on the cake. the emperor has no clothes as well as no head. If the media was doing its job, it should push for Obama to be impeached over this.
In the middle of two wars against terrorism, a pandemic, environmental and economic crises, this *sshole of a president USED Airforce 1 and 2 military fighter planes TO BUZZ NYC AND CAUSE 911 hysteria in the biggest city in the USA,!!!!! AND THE FEDS, UNDER OBAMA'S TENURE & WATCH, TOLD EVERYONE TO REMAIN QUIET ABOUT IT!!!!!!?????
...the country is running on the fumes of its 200 yr successes but for all purposes is not only rudderless and powerless, but also captain-less & brainless.
...and its good to see a liberal republican like Specter, who hated Reagan & hated conservatism, finally go back home to the party of his political birth. the wolf has removed his sheepskin & its about time.
what a scary farce these career politicians, like Obama & Specter, are to the USA. They are ethically corrupt politicians who do not care about those they have sworn to serve & protect, but only care about their own cowardly, dishonest & immoral skins.
By Brian, at
Wed Apr 29, 12:03:00 PM:
TH, what I was trying to say was that many people, millions of them, have made sacrifices at varying levels to reduce climate change impacts. You're demanding the complete non-existence of hypocrites among the AGW crowd, and that's not reasonable (I for one wouldn't measure up to that standard of never being hypocritical).
Having said that, yes the photo op was stupid and wasteful.
By Georg Felis, at
Wed Apr 29, 01:24:00 PM:
The flight of Scare Force One was against FAA regulations also, Title 14, Section 91.119 on Minimum safe altitudes; general
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the
following altitudes;
(a) •Anywhere. •An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue
hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) •Over congested areas. •Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any
open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a
horizontal radius of 2.000 feet of the aircraft.
Military aircraft pilots hold some immunity to this, with permissions from their commander, but I would imagine any F-16 jockey who tried this, say above Cleveland, would be flying a desk in Alaska the next day.
Does anybody have any stories on how they got the original “Air Force One and the Statue of Liberty” photo that they were attempting to replace?
By jaed, at
Fri May 01, 01:06:00 AM:
Who says there *was* an original "Air Force One and Statue of Liberty" photo?
