Plane crashes in to NYC building..... dejavu anyone?

[SlowwHand]

Too bad Steinbrenner wasn't onboard.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Winston
A couple more points from Wikipedia,

Lidle's Cirrus was equipped with a Ballistic Recovery System, a parachute designed to bring the whole plane down to earth safely in case of an emergency.

..citing The New York Times.

This recovery system was apparently not deployed

This is indeed quite SHOCKING.

Are you aware such devices require a minimum altitude to function?

A hard 90-degree turn, hmm.. almost as if someone was aiming for something.

Or there was a malfunction.
Or the pilot was inexperienced.
Or the pilot was panicing.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Winston
Which is why I suggested the logical place to deploy it would be over the East River, where he was immediately prior to the crash.

Which would be suicide. Do you have the slightest idea how a BRS works? Sudden deceleration, hard impact into harnesses (whiplash/concussion strong possibilities) then nose first into the drink at significant velocity (assuming there was airspeed/altitude sufficient to deploy), with a 50 plus foot chute right on top as you sank in the plane - assuming you were still conscious or even alive, then getting out underwater, avoiding the risers on the chute and getting to the surface, without flotation devices and in street clothes? Nothing personal, but that's one of the dumbest ****ing things I've heard in a while.

But it wasn't deployed, instead the aircraft took a sharp 90 degree turn to hit the building smack in the center.

The plane isn't even close to aerobatic capability. A sharp 90 degree turn would have a completely unpredictable exit point. They may have been trying for the street, or they may have been totally out of control of the plane at that point.

I don't see why this theory of a deliberate crash is so alien to most of you.

Not alien, just ridiculous, especially when the guy was concerned about weather at his destination and brought along an IP since he wasn't IFR qualified and didn't have a lot of flight time in that plane.

Is it commonplace for planes to accidentally hit buildings in such a bull's eye manner, do you think?

Given that Manhattan is about 99.99% building at that heading and altitude, yep, he'd probably hit a building just about every time, especially if maneuvering sharply. Looking at instruments, looking at where you're pointing, where you're going, and where you're going to be pointing and going coming out of a turn would make a bobblehead out of anyone. That's assuming you're coming out of a turn, not a spin, which in that airplane, you won't come out of until you hit something.

And has anyone bothered to check into the Pirelli Tower crash in Milan in 2002, as I've suggested a couple of times? The pilot inexplicably flew straight into the tower, and from what I've gathered, it is widely regarded as a rather spectacular suicide, mimicking the 9/11 attacks.

So why not this one?

As you've explained yourself, the pilot didn't fly straight into anything. There were also two pilots aboard, so what's you're theory there? Gay love suicide? Why not just stall on takeoff, if your goal is to buy the farm with an airplane?

[Winston]

Was this Lidle guy sponsored by Microsoft, by any chance?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Winston
Was this Lidle guy sponsored by Microsoft, by any chance?

Never heard of him til today, you're just being so ridiculous and out to lunch.

Yankyees pitcher is out on a RAMPAGE! He hijacks his own airplane and crashes it into a condo while everyone is at work! THAT WILL TEACH 'EM! THIS MAKES SENSE.

[Winston]

You have to admit the point of impact looks rather targeted, just like the Pirelli Tower one.

And what difference does it make if he was a Yankees pitcher? Pitchers don't end their own lives, ever!? Is it in their contract?

Was he not involved in a rather harsh verbal controversy with his old side at the time of the plane crash, with mutual accusations flying everywhere? Does that signal to you a person that is in total control of his life and as happy as can be about his career and public image?

[SlowwHand]

It was out of fuel, they believe. Has that been said?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Winston
You have to admit the point of impact looks rather targeted, just like the Pirelli Tower one.

And what difference does it make if he was a Yankees pitcher? Pitchers don't end their own lives, ever!? Is it in their contract?

Was he not involved in a rather harsh verbal controversy with his old side at the time of the plane crash, with mutual accusations flying everywhere? Does that signal to you a person that is in total control of his life and as happy as can be about his career and public image?

Oh, get off it.

[Winston]

You can "run out of fuel" (or claim as much over the radio), and still crash deliberately. That is what happened in the Pirelli Tower incident. The pilot radioed that he was running out of fuel, they were preparing for an emergency landing, when all of a sudden he weered off course and crashed into the skyscraper.

In this case, as in so many others where future public safety is of concern, the authorities will of course have a clear interest in preventing a sense of general insecurity among citizens, by getting the final reports to suggest an accident rather than a deliberate act of attempted mayhem.

I hold only the most modest of illusions that they'll come out and state that this was in fact a case of suicide ("and you'd better watch out, because this could happen again, there are alot of crazy folks out there, you know"). Not bloody likely.

[SlowwHand]

I'm just saying about the fuel is all, just reporting.
Maybe he was bummed out over not making playoffs.

[Winston]

It's always something to do with oil with you Texans.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Winston
In this case, as in so many others where future public safety is of concern, the authorities will of course have a clear interest in preventing a sense of general insecurity among citizens, by getting the final reports to suggest an accident rather than a deliberate act of attempted mayhem.

I hold only the most modest of illusions that they'll come out and state that this was in fact a case of suicide ("and you'd better watch out, because this could happen again, there are alot of crazy folks out there, you know"). Not bloody likely.

So if you're wrong, they'll confirm it was an accident. If you're right, they'll still confirm it was an accident (to cover up the terrifying truth). Convenient...

[Winston]

It would seem that way, yes.

The tendency of public authorities to alarm the citizenry when other avenues could be taken has a very bad record. And not just in the U.S., that's the same in most places I would think.

Do you disagree?

[Darius871]

Sure I agree with that; what I'm commenting on is the fact that shrouding yourself in that reasoning protects you from ever being proven wrong. It's a very convenient defense mechanism that lets you juuuuuuuust barely slither out of being unequivocally pwned.

[Winston]

Yes, it would seem that way. But I can't really help that, now can I?

Though when I read back, I admit I do sound like a bit of a conspiracy nut in some places, not least with the circular logic you pointed out (of which I was aware at the time of posting, by the way).

*shrugs*