That plane that got too close to the White House

[morosco]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 8:34pm

The news media is making me crazy! They are putting a spin on this whole thing making the whole situation seem harmless. They keep saying "oh it was a tiny plane", "oh they have a tiny amount of fuel", "no they couldn't have done very much damage". Thank goodnesss it was just pilot error but WHAT??!?! What if the plane had explosives on board? What if it had a dirty bomb that could easily be dropped?

Sorry. Just had to get that off my chest. Now I can relax.

[Rose_MacShane]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 8:36pm

I'm just glad they didn't shoot it down and *then* see if it was dangerous...

[morosco]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 8:39pm

I know Rose_MacShane...I agree with you on that point as well. I'd hate to be the one to make the decision to shoot it down or not.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 8:43pm

They aren't "Putting a spin" it's a fact: The plane was harmless.

And Moprosco, you can be sure there wasn't "A dirty bomb" on board because there is no such thing. It is another thing that has been threatened to make people like you scared. There has never been a "Dirty bomb" and scientists are split over whether such a thing could be built and it so, what it would accomplish.
But considering the people running the White House and the Capitol don't think Evolution works, I guess we shouldn't expect much out of them.

But rest asured, there was no crisis. It was a false alarm like the "attack" last week. And the "attack" last month. Sleep well. You are OK.

[morosco]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 8:48pm

Even if dirty bombs aren't "real" their main goal is psychological. They can still do dramatic damage to a society's psyche.

[Plum]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 8:50pm

From the way it sounds, the situation was handled very nicely. The jets from Andrews managed to get to the plane, surround it, and fire warning flares before it got too close to the major government buildings. Everyone in said buildings was evacuated, and VIPs were taken to secure locations. That's not spin; it's the facts. The DC no-fly zone worked the way it was supposed to.
Updated On: 5/11/05 at 08:50 PM

[morosco]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 8:55pm

Yeah. You guys are right. I think I'll turn the news off and put on some SHOW TUNES!!!

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 8:59pm

No Morosco, it's good to listen to the news. But I think you missed my point: No one has ever built or detonated a "Dirty Bomb." The reason you are worried about them is because your own government is scaring you that one might be detonated. A terrorist isn't threatening you with a "Dirty bomb" your GOVERNMENT is. And you are exactly right: Even if dirty bombs aren't "real" their main goal is psychological. They can still do dramatic damage to a society's psyche.


Wicked might be right: The best way to bring people together is to give them a good enemy.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 9:00pm

hah, plum, your so-called "facts" fail to take into account the fact that the government has covered up the fact that the plane was carrying an h-bomb in the hundred megaton range, jacketed with cobalt thorium g which as you know has a radioactive half life of ninety three years. it's detonation would have triggered a doomsday shroud over the entireity of dc.

[morosco]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 9:04pm

Oh no! I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. I was being serious! Sometimes I leave a news channel playing while I do work but it's always a bad idea. They make eveything sound like the end of the world. I'll limit how much I watch and turn it off when they start doing all the speculation. Now...back to listening to THE PRODUCERS.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 9:23pm

The whole situation was invented by the White House to drown out the news today that former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge, who resigned February 1, said earlier today that the administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level.

And like the trained ponies they are, the supposedly "liberal" (ha!) mainstream media fed the public the pablum and the public responded.

There was no threat, and the "dramatic damage to a society's psyche" is actually done by these Chicken Little false alarms.

Ridge reveals clashes on alerts

Updated On: 5/11/05 at 09:23 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 9:29pm

What the hell? There were witnesses who saw the F-16s intercepting the Cessna. The evacuations of federal buildings were real- there's photographic evidence of that.

ETA- The Secret Service is saying that the incursion on no-fly airspace was accidental. If they really made this up for attention, don't you think they would pretend to still be investigating so they could drag it out for a couple of days? You're seeing conspiracies where there are none, PalJoey.


MSNBC Updated On: 5/11/05 at 09:29 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 9:42pm

I'm not saying the plane wasn't real. I'm saying this was a wag-the-dog crisis manufactured to deflect attention from Ridge.

[CurtainUp2]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 9:46pm

It's all one big crock of s#!t, if you ask me. What's that? You're not asking me? Oh well... it's still a big crock!

[Plum]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 10:08pm

Okay, PalJoey, but you still haven't explained why the Secret Service assured the public that the plane's incursion was accidental mere hours after the incident instead of dragging it out for more attention.

But that's always the way with conspiracy theorists, isn't it? Instead of taking the evidence and coming up with a conclusion, you have a conclusion and shape the evidence to fit it.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 10:37pm

You're absolutely right, Plum. It was a complete coincidence this happened the same day Tom Ridge admitted that the White House had been trumping up orange and red alerts since 9/11.

A complete coincidence.

Updated On: 5/11/05 at 10:37 PM

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 10:46pm

I'm not sure I agree with Pal Joey, but it is not like this is the first time. Everytime a person has a major internal position and comes out to speak against the Adminstration, it happens to occur on the day of at least a purported national crisis. One of the times Ridge raised the terror alert on flimsy evidence just happened to be the day Richard Clarke's book came out, another was the day of the Abu Jirab scandal being reported. The press just needed to be diverted so the idea that they didn't actually drag it out is essentially in favor of the arguement it was planned, they don't want the public actually to be afraid, just afraid enough to believe whatever they are told.

Updated On: 5/11/05 at 10:46 PM

[Up In Won]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 10:47pm

What about the whole situation with the grenade that happened in teh Republic of Georgia? They made this big thing about it, then downplayed it and now it's over.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 10:50pm

PJ's point is well taken.

[Plum]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 10:52pm

Everytime a person has a major internal position and comes out to speak against the Adminstration, it happens to occur on the day of at least a purported national crisis.

Prove. It. All you're giving is anecdotal evidence- instances when such news items happened on the same days. You're shaping the evidence to fit your theory. If you're making conspiracy claims, the burden of proof is on you- track down every single time someone in a "major internal position comes out to speak against the Administration," then see in how many of those instances some kind of security threat occured on the same day. Then, track down all the claimed domestic security threats in that time period in general to see how many there were. I want statistical correlation. Saying "these things happened on the same day" isn't going to cut it- news stories that are detrimental to this Administration happen every day, but I don't see Cessnas flying into forbidden airspace daily.
Updated On: 5/11/05 at 10:52 PM

[CurtainUp2]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 10:55pm

"...but I don't see Cessnas flying into forbidden airspace daily."

You're right. You only hear about it when it's convienient for them to divert your attention.

[Plum]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 10:58pm

That's my point, though- there's been plenty of instances when news stories that are just plain embarrasing for this administration have come out and there was no security threat. Why wasn't it "convenient" then? You're just picking and choosing the evidence that suits your viewpoint.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 10:59pm

Well I don't believe it is a conspiracy first of all. I think the administration mostly relies on shoddy press work and a disinterested public to divert attention away from internal problems. As far as proving it, it wont matter there is no proof if it is a conspiracy then they will have gotten rid of the proof. Besides that you and I both know no amount of Statistical evidence would prove it. It is anecdoetal, the entire key to the point is that the spin points away from the facts, so in addition to the actual evidence it would be neccesary to report the positioning of the stories and the tone of voice used in reporting them, as well.

[Plum]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 11:01pm

What the hell? Of course statistical evidence would show something. Here's the essence of a statistical correlation test- it's meant to say how likely it is that an association could have occured by chance. If you find there's less than a 10% chance (5% is better, but I'm being generous) that your demonstrated association between "security threats" and "stories detrimental to Bush" could have occurred purely by chance, well, your conspiracy theory has some actual evidence behind it.


For example, statistics provide pretty damning evidence about vote counting practices in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania in the last Presidential election. Not that anyone did anything about it, but conspiracies aren't so powerful they can get rid of larger statistical trends.

And you know what I find really funny? That certain people here can accuse the Bush administration of being expert and flawless media manipulators capable of perfectly engineering things like a Cessna stunt at their convenience, then turning around one second later and saying they're totally incompetent boobs who can't run the country to save their lives. Make up your mind, people. Either the Bushies have a talent for organization and getting things done or they don't.
Updated On: 5/11/05 at 11:01 PM

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 11:05pm

If there is a conspiracy, which I said I don't agree with, but if there is then the statistical test would mean nothing because the data is flawed.
The reason a statistical test means nothing in this case is twofold. One, neither of us would believe the other's statistics. Two the statistics do not take into account the manner and presentation of the delivery of the information at the original time, which is what I am arguing is what the Administration is doing.