Airliners Come Too Close to L.A.’s Downtown
I’ll say this about the new revelations regarding the Al Qaeda plot on L.A.’s tallest skyscraper. Jetliners come too damn close to downtown. As this Los Angeles Times story says:
One reason for the concern is that jetliners crossing the Pacific regularly make a lazy circle over downtown as they line up to land at LAX from the east. Sometimes the huge planes come in low too.
“A couple of weeks ago one came right toward us. Everyone just stopped and stared with their mouths open,” said Erol Andal, a Glendale resident who manages a sandwich shop on a plaza outside the tower’s second-floor entryway. “I had my escape already planned if it had hit. I would have run right down that escalator there and away from here.”
Up on the 56th floor, Eric Bender, vice president of a property management company, said workers pause when they glance out and see flights bound for LAX seemingly headed directly at them.
“It’s very scary to watch these planes come in very low, very slow as they make this big loop,” said Bender, whose firm is a subtenant in the tower. “I’ve often thought that they should change the landing pattern and make it psychologically less scary.”
Not just psychologically, but less dangerous as well. As a downtown pedestrian, I have often noticed how absurdly close jet airliners seem to come to downtown’s skyscrapers. I once asked a friend who is an amateur pilot how long it would take for one of these airliners to divert from its flight pattern and crash into L.A.’s tallest skyscraper. He said twenty seconds.
To me, it looks like it would take only ten. But even twenty seconds seems like a very short time. Terrorists could take over a cockpit and crash the plane into the tower before most passengers even knew what was happening.
I admit I’m not an expert in this area. But I’m not sure I trust the experts, either.
Well considering the recent release of this story, maybe just maybe some of those so called experts ought to rethink the approach plans to LAX…
russ (2d4887) — 2/11/2006 @ 4:21 pmPatterico:
I know they look really close, but they’re much higher than you think they are. Honestly!
And it would be virtually impossible to change the approach pattern, unless the runways at LAX were also changed; you can’t make a lot of sudden course changes while landing a 757.
As far as terrorists, it would actually be harder to take over the plan during landing, since by the time the jet is on final approach, everybody is supposed to be strapped into his seat; if a group of men were to get up and march purposefully towards the cockpit, all the stewardi would intercept them, followed swiftly by the panicky passengers.
All it would take would be a few seconds delay, and the plane would be safely past downtown.
Besides, it wouldn’t have as devastating an effect if done on approach as during departure:
There would be less impact due to slower speed, since the plane is “dirtied up” by then: gear down, flaps extended, spoilers up to act as air brakes;
There would be little fuel left in the tanks. It wasn’t the impact that took down the towers… it was the hellish inferno of all that jet fuel burning and melting the steel structure.
More likely, the terrorists would try to take over the plane after takeoff, when the seatbelt light went out; then they would turn the plane around and head for the Library Tower. That is a much more dangerous time than during landing.
Dafydd
Dafydd (6e94cd) — 2/11/2006 @ 4:25 pmMany times, riding on an airliner that was landing in a major city, I’ve looked out the window at skyscrapers and thought, “We are way too close for this to be safe.”
One flight in particular, I think it was landing in New York. It felt like that scene in Star Wars when the fighters dive down into the trench. There were skyscrapers on either side, and if we had gone not much lower we would literally have been between them.
A lot of obvious lessons were not learned after 9-11, but if they had tried to attack us with cropdusters, we would have been right on top of it.
steve M (73e732) — 2/11/2006 @ 7:37 pmI used to work for Adobe, and would occasionally visit their main office buildings in San Jose. These 15 story buildings are south of the runways at San Jose Airport, and about 2 miles from the end of the runways (directly in line with the runways)
If you are high in the building, and on the south side, it appears that each plane is aiming for you as it lands.
On those days that the wind shifts, and the planes take off to the south, the people on the north sides of the buildings get a treat. The planes line up at the end of the runway, and accelerate directly towards you. They lift off, and point their noses right at your office window, and then, after about 20 (seems much longer) seconds, they rise over the buildings, and you see their bellies as they flash overhead.
Of course, if you enjoy flying between buildings, you have got to fly into San Diego.
Marshall (19f225) — 2/11/2006 @ 7:49 pmShortly after 9/11 I lived in the San Diego area and was commuting back and forth between SD and San Francisco on a bi-weekly basis on a Boeing 737. Downtown San Diego is no LA, but the flight path upon landing came eerily close to the buildings there.
My awareness always increased in intensity and I watched the aisle knowing that I would only have a few seconds to take counter measures if some suspicious looking fellow made a move toward the cockpit.
I never much enjoyed those flights.
Jason McClain (b82d76) — 2/11/2006 @ 9:29 pm[…] Patterico has a post on the proximity of airliners on approach at LAX: Not just psychologically, but less dangerous as well. As a downtown pedestrian, I have often noticed how absurdly close jet airliners seem to come to downtown’s skyscrapers. I once asked a friend who is an amateur pilot how long it would take for one of these airliners to divert from its flight pattern and crash into L.A.’s tallest skyscraper. He said twenty seconds. […]
The Golden Gate » Too Close for Comfort (bb629a) — 2/11/2006 @ 9:34 pmThis seems to be a fairly common thing; airliners flying into San Jose come close to downtown, as do those flying into Oakland, or things like Love Field in Dallas, TX.
There’s a serious trade-off here: people want airports to be close enough to the city centers that the airports are easy to get into and out of, but they want them to be far enough away from the city so that the side effects (safety and noise) are reduced.
aphrael (6b0647) — 2/12/2006 @ 12:31 pmAfter clicking onto this site, click onto
blubonnet (dc52ec) — 2/12/2006 @ 1:13 pm“who we are”
http://www/st911.org/
OOPS. Make that:
http://www.st911.org/
blubonnet (dc52ec) — 2/12/2006 @ 1:15 pmYeah, Jason, I was going to comment on San Diego, too. I’ll never forget the first time I landed there (in a DC-10, no less). It looked like we were flying down a city street. The tops of the buildings looked higher than we were.
CraigC (4525c5) — 2/12/2006 @ 5:01 pmThe close passes increase danger of an accident in fog, but don’t make it any easier for terrorists to fly into a building. It’s not like putting the plane’s flight path another 4 miles (60 seconds at 240 mph) away from the building would make a difference, unless we have missile batteries all over ready to shoot on less than 60 seconds notice.
DWPittelli (376b98) — 2/12/2006 @ 5:03 pmConspiracy theories
The site BluBonnet linked holds that the World Trade Center twin towers were destroyed by a controlled demolition event.
…
Common Sense Political Thought (819604) — 2/12/2006 @ 5:53 pmHey, Commom Sense Political Thought (Dana?),
blubonnet (dc52ec) — 2/12/2006 @ 8:45 pmI am suggesting one go there and see the many professionals supporting it. Like someone who worked in NASA, professors from quite a few colleges, physicists, and many more. It’s not a left wing or right wing issue. There’s Republican sites dedicated to studying all the irregularities of the government story as well. This site has a lot of clout in it however (above)
Just check out the list of intellectual heavywieghts in on it. It’s fascinating at least.
Check the link above out.
The humanities are well represented, but you will look in vain for more than a few, and that’s charitable, with any expertise in the subject matter at hand. You will also look in vain for any peer-reviewed published research. Why is this so important to me? I simply believe that it’s important that the work of the authors of the various papers, conspiracy theories, assertions and allegations be subject to the same rigorous criticism to which they wish to subject the 9/11 Commission, the congressional committees, and others who have come to completely different conclusions regarding these events.
Furthermore, the members of this organization have been completely dismissive of the various governmental investigations and have stated and implied conspiracies of such depravity that, were they true, should result in the severest penalties possible for the participants, up to and including president Bush. This is not a game. It is not a joke. If true, the president should be impeached immediately, should be removed from office in disgrace and should spend the remainder of his life in jail with his co-conspirators.
Not only do I believe the various charges and allegations false, but indeed slanderous. Unfortunately, it’s possible in the current political environment to assert baseless, illogical, factually deficient, ridiculous nonsense and demand that the target prove a negative. Michael Moore has made a comfortable living through the use of this technique in his many films. I’ve already addressed the litany of problems I’ve identified with the opinions of both Drs Griffin and Jones several times in numerous threads.
Here’s the list (with my apologies for the length) of full members:
Kevin Barrett (FM) Folklore, UW-Madison; Director, Khidria, Inc.; Founding Member, Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth
Tracy Blevins (FM) Bioengineering, Rice University
Robert M. Bowman (FM) Former Director of the U.S. “Star Wars” Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and a former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions
Clare Brandabur (FM) Assistant professor of English Literature at Dogus University in Istanbul
Harriet Cianci (FM) Tunxis Community College, CT
William A. Cook (FM) Professor of English, University of La Verne, Author of “Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-East Policy”
Richard Curtis (FM) Philosophy, Seattle University
Lloyd DeMause (FM) Director of The Institute for Psychohistory, President of the International Psychohistorical Association and Editor of The Journal of Psychohistory
A. K. Dewdney (FM) Mathematician, Computer Scientist, University of Western Ontario
Inouye, Dillon K. (FM) Instructional Psychology and Technology, Brigham Young University
Albert Dragstedt (FM) Classics and Philosophy, St. Mary’s College, Oakland, CA
Jeffrey Farrer (FM) Physics/ Materials Science, BYU
James H. Fetzer (FM) Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, a former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of S9/11T
Marcus Ford (FM) Humanities, NAU
Ruth Frankenberg (FM) American Studies, Cultural Studies, Author of four books
David Gabbard (FM) Curriculum & Instruction College of Education East Carolina University
Daniele Ganser (FM) Historian, Basel University, Switzerland
David Ray Griffin (FM) Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion & Theology, Claremont School of Theology & Claremont Graduate University, Author or editor of some 30 books, including “The New Pearl Harbor” and “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions”
Don “Four Arrows” Jacobs (FM) Former Dean of Education, Oglala Lakota College and currently professor of educational leadership at Fielding Graduate University and at Northern Arizona University
Andrew Johnson (FM) Physics, Computer Science, Software Engineering
Steven Jones (FM) Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and the creator of its home page and its forum
Richard McGinn (FM) Associate Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and Southeast Asian Studies, Ohio University. Former chair of Linguistics (10 years) and Director of Southeast Asian Studies (4 years) at Ohio University
Robert Merrill (FM) Literature and Humanities; Maryland Institute College of Art; Editor, Maisonneuve Press
Michael Morrissey (FM) English as a Foreign Language, University of Kassel, Germany
John McMurtry, Ph.D. (FM) Professor of Philosophy, University Professor Emeritus Elect, University of Guelph, Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, and the author of six books dealing with public policy issues
Raymond Munro (FM) Professor of Theatre, Clark University
Matthew Orr (FM) Population Biology, Evolution and Ecology, University of Oregon “Is the War on Terror Fraudulent?”
Peter Phillips (FM) Sociology Department, Sonoma State University, Global Dominance Research, http://www.projectcensored.org
Jean-Pierre Petit (FM) Aeronautics, astrophysics, engineering
Diana Ralph (FM) Associate Professor Carleton University School of Social Work. Author of Work and Madness: The Rise of Community Psychiatry
Joseph Raso (FM) Political Science, Comparative and International Politics, State-sponsored terrorism
Paul W. Rea (FM) Humanities, St. Mary’s College, CA, Author of “Still Seeking the Truth about 9/11”
Morgan Reynolds (FM) Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor for President George W. Bush, and former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis
Karen Rice (FM) Associate Professor, Western Washington University Libraries
David Sprintzen (FM) Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, Long Island Progressive Coalition, Citizen Action of New York
Morgan Stack (FM) Accounting, Finance & Information Systems, University College Cork (UCC), Ireland. Co-founder of the Irish 9/11 Truth Movement
Webster Griffin Tarpley (FM) President, Washington Grove Institute Government-sponsored terror
Andreas Von Buelow (FM) Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years
Lon Waters (FM) High performance computing Software engineering Sandia National Laboratory
Carl Weis (FM) Associate Professor of Creative Arts, Siena College, retired
Richard Welser (FM) Psychology, Neuropsychology, Philosophy of Science
Judy Wood (FM) Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 2/12/2006 @ 10:11 pmSo, Harry, tell me do you believe Jesus is going to take you to Heaven and that I’m going to Hell? Do you discount Evolution in favor of “intellegent design”? Are you expecting the rapture some time soon? Do you believe that gays are bound for hell? Why don’t you tell us why your beliefs are so valid? I’m counting on scholars in the fields of present converstation to do their work. I’m not claiming any grand intellect. I’ll let those that have proven themselves in the world.
So, at least my beliefs are backed up by a group of scholars, a great many of which are experts in the fields required to study these points presented.
blubonnet (b48357) — 2/12/2006 @ 11:17 pmHarry, since you’ve mentioned your Evangelical faith, I’m asking you to do equal scrutiny into your belief systems.
Michael Moore has been thanked by many many soldiers by the way for his brave candor, despite the derision he’s gotten from those not wanting his information he’s put out exposed. My bet is you haven’t even seen his movie.
I will refer to an Einstien quote I use and overuse but somehow doesn’t manage to reach into the minds that it needs to reach. I will try to tell you that your opinions are paid for by the most profitable industry in history. That industry which has stock in most of the major networks, has your mind all wrapped up and paid for. The networks get thier checks written by the sponsors. It’s a long and complicated explanation, which you ought to check out. There is a film you can watch on the web if you google it up. It’s called: ORWELL ROLLS IN HIS GRAVE which will explain the seriousness of the media consolidation problem. Why do you think there is so much confusion as to what the real truth is out there now. It’s the golden rule. He with the gold rules. Here’s the Einstien quote again: DEMOCRACY TAKEN IN ITS NARROWER PURELY POLITICAL SENSE, SUFFERS FROM THE FACT THAT THOSE IN ECONOMIC OR POLITICAL POWER POSSESS THE MEANS FOR MOLDING PUBLIC OPINION TO SERVE THEIR OWN CLASS INTERESTS. Sorry to those of you that have had to endure my endless use of that quote, but it is so pertinent.
blubonnet (b48357) — 2/12/2006 @ 11:52 pm#15 [1]So, Harry, tell me do you believe Jesus is going to take you to Heaven and that I’m going to Hell? [2]Do you discount Evolution in favor of “intellegent design”? [3]Are you expecting the rapture some time soon? [4]Do you believe that gays are bound for hell? [5]Why don’t you tell us why your beliefs are so valid? [6]I’m counting on scholars in the fields of present converstation to do their work. I’m not claiming any grand intellect. [7]I’ll let those that have proven themselves in the world.
[8]So, at least my beliefs are backed up by a group of scholars, a great many of which are experts in the fields required to study these points presented.
I think you need to re-read my post. The preponderance of your response does not addresses the point I was making.
Out of courtesy I will answer your questions.
1. I have no possible way of knowing your eternal destiny. That’s without question only between you and God. Living my life keeps me busy enough.
2. It depends on what you mean by these terms.
3. Only God knows.
4. See answer 1.
5. I have provided extensive factual and logical reasoning for every comment I have made regarding the subject. Surely you don’t expect me to restate everything I’ve said on this and other sites on which we’ve discussed this issue and these authors? Is it just ever so slightly possible that these scholars are wrong? Surely you wouldn’t suggest that I not express my disagreement with their analysis would you?
6. “Scholars in the field” is a definition on which we seem to be in complete disagreement.
7. See comment #6.
8. In all due respect, I simply disagree that the list above represents “scholars, a great many of which are experts in the fields required to study these points…”. My point is that they are not. I provided the list from the web site you provided to illustrate my point. One only needs to review the list to determine whether my opinion is reasonable or not.
#16 I’m uncertain why my faith or my belief system is germaine to this discussion. I have presented arguments, facts, analysis and opinions. If they are incorrect, I await arguments, facts analysis and opinions to convince me otherwise. To date, these have not been forthcoming.
I seriously doubt Michael Moore has been thanked by more than a handful of soldiers. Most soldiers support the work they are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. I have seen Mr Moore’s movies. He typically cherry-picks “facts” to support his viewpoint. I don’t believe watching a Michael Moore movie is a way to get at the truth on any particular subject including GM, Columbine, or the war in Iraq. Perhaps we can discuss Mr Moore’s movie-making philosophy on a future thread.
That industry which has stock in most of the major networks, has your mind all wrapped up and paid for.
We’ve discussed the condition of my mind before. Whatever…
Harry Arthur (40c0a6) — 2/13/2006 @ 10:25 am…but somehow doesn’t manage to reach into the minds that it needs to reach. I will try to tell you that your opinions are paid for by the most profitable industry in history.
Ah, yes, the old right wing media bias …
As I have argued before, EVERYTHING is paid for by someone.
Harry Arthur (40c0a6) — 2/13/2006 @ 10:29 amHarry – one of the things that I find consistently amusing about the discussion of media bias is that conservatives have, for as long as i’ve been aware of the subject, insisted on the existence of a liberal media bias – but leftists insist on the existence of a conservative media bias.
The leftists have a point, although they express it poorly. There is little to no outlet in mass media for truly extreme left-wing views; and the media has a clear capitalist or corporatist bias.
The media may also have a bias which is left-of-center with respect to mainstream politics; but from the standpoint of someone who is on the left-wing edge of politics, the media has a clear anti-socialist, big-money bias.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/13/2006 @ 11:05 amMichael Moore put out a book of letters from soldiers had written him. He always has letters from many on his web site, because there are far too many letters to put in a book. Michael Moore has received the Paul Wellstone award. He loves his country enough to accept the derision from the powerful right wing with their many pundits.
blubonnet (39808b) — 2/13/2006 @ 11:30 amAnd yes there still are many soldiers out there that are believing in the mission, despite the lies that surface almost daily that come out of this administration. The violation of these fine young men and women is unspeakable. I doubt they have the ability to do research and access the sources availible that expose the truth. They are sucked into the hectic, ass busting operation, with only the main objective of staying alive and keeping their buddies alive. More and more however are learning the truth. Many despise this administration. Rightfully so. They have offered up themselves in honor, only to be abused. That is what I hate most about this administration. They kick these guys in the heart.
I have presented arguments, facts, analysis and opinions. If they are incorrect, I await arguments, facts analysis and opinions to convince me otherwise. To date, these have not been forthcoming.
Guess I’ll have to be patient…
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 2/13/2006 @ 11:47 amaphrael, I’m more inclined to attribute any bias to a world view bias. It is my opinion that most students who migrate to journalism have a world view which is typically what I would call “liberal”/left of center. It is my belief that this “colors their thinking and writing”.
Bernard Goldberg, himself of this background, has written two excellent books on the subject. I agree with his analysis that the so-called “liberal bias” in the news derives from this common world view. There is clearly no conspiracy to shape the news in a certain way. It is simply a matter of the lense through which we view it. Journalists in general are just being themselves.
They also tend to be somewhat lazy. This is probably driven by the quantity of news to be covered and deadline pressures, but they seem more than willing to develop stories as a “herd”, relying on sources such as AP feeds rather than personal initiative to do necessary research.
I’m also not sure I would agree that the media has an “anti-socialist” bias, at least by my understanding of the word. I can say this. I’m virtually certain that they are not in on whatever governmental conspiracies we might be discussing. And I’m equally certain that if there were solid evidence of such a conspiracy that they would fall all over themselves to report it. After all, who in the media would not want to be the next Woodward or Bernstein?
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 2/13/2006 @ 12:41 pmAphrael wrote:
Depends on what you mean. Clearly The Nation and The Progressive and Mother Jones are out there; it’s also clear that they simply don’t sell very well, as is the case with most political opinion magazines.
But the internet has changed all of that. If The Nation’s circulation is week, the far left websites like The Lost Kos get a lot of hits and readers; it’s easy and free to read.
Well, considering that my opinion of “mainstream leftists” in the United States is that they are just proto-socialists who don’t realize the implications of the things that they say, I’d say that the people you have described certainly don’t have an anti-socialist bias at all. 🙂
Dana (3e4784) — 2/13/2006 @ 12:54 pmAphrael wrote:
What the mainstream media have is a liberal Democratic bias. To conservatives are Republicans, that is a leftward bias. To the far left, however, the MSM bias in favor of governmental Democratic positions can seem like a conservative bias.
The Alito confirmation is a good example. The mainstream media, on the whole, would have preferred that Justice Alito had been defeated (liberal bias to a conservative), but also sided with the Harry Reid (initial) position that a filibuster was not a reasonable tactic to use, given the threat of the nuclear option. To the denizens of The Lost Kos, this was tantamount to treason and surrender to the Republicans, and was seen as a conservative bias.
And (almost) needless to say, the media have only very limited knowledge of history and less than that of economics.
Dana (3e4784) — 2/13/2006 @ 1:04 pmaphrael, remember, your opinions are paid for. I should think you would sound just a bit more right wing. If you can’t get your act together we’ll have to take drastic action. We’ve already sent the Brute Squad out to Charlie’s. So, wise up.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 2/13/2006 @ 1:04 pmIt ought to go without saying that from the standpoint of anyone on the X-wing edge of politics, the media, both major political parties, and the overwhelming majority of the population all have a Y-wing bias. The difference is found among mainstream conservatives and moderates, who have no trouble identifying the obvious liberal bias of most of the MSM, vs. mainstream liberals, who don’t think the media is biased at all. Of course they don’t; no one thinks their own bias is bias.
Xrlq (ffb240) — 2/13/2006 @ 2:00 pmHarry, you refer to Bernie Goldberg…LOL. He’s a corporate whore.
blubonnet (dc52ec) — 2/13/2006 @ 2:28 pmYou’re serious, right? I don’t care about Bernie Goldberg’s sex life. What about his opinions? What about his arguments? What about his analysis? Nice ad hominem, though. Another logical falacy among so many.
But Michael Moore is to be trusted. Whatever.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 2/13/2006 @ 5:09 pmHmmm. Dan Rather remained at CBS (a rather large corporation), while Bernard Goldberg left, yet it is Mr Goldberg who is the “corporate whore.”
Dana (a90377) — 2/13/2006 @ 5:57 pmBut, Dana, you see Bernie Goldberg does not fit the template therefore he, too, is controlled by the people who control your mind and pay for your opinions.
I honestly don’t have a single problem with disagreeing with Burnie Goldberg’s arguments and opinions if I were presented with rational, thoughtful, reasoned arguments. I’m waiting patiently to be convinced.
EVERYTHING is paid for. Billionaire George Soros, is NOT a “corporate whore”. Michael Moore, who has made more money off the Iraq war than Dick Cheney and George Bush put together, is also by definition NOT a “corporate whore”.
I hear, though, that “corporate whore” work is good if you can find it.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 2/13/2006 @ 7:47 pmThe golden rule is: HE WITH THE GOLD RULES. Whose got the most money to control the most thought?
blubonnet (dc52ec) — 2/14/2006 @ 2:43 amThere are only a handful of media consolidation ownerships. Gee, you think they might be really really rich? Do you think that policies for the rich guys are going to be the favored perspective? Is George W. Bush for the Rich guy?
Blu wrote:
The fact is that there are rich guys all across the political spectrum; surely you remember George Soros?
And we are living in an era when the “handful of media consolidation ownerships” mean much less than before.
Here you are, posting your thoughts for all to see, and it isn’t costing you a dime. And there are plenty of far left sites available. It’s not like the “handful of media consolidation ownerships” have the power to silence speech they don’t like.
Dana (3e4784) — 2/14/2006 @ 6:49 amDana, I’m talking about major network ownership.
blubonnet (dc52ec) — 2/14/2006 @ 12:03 pmyou should google up “media consolidation” if you are interested in knowing more about this serious problem. Or google up ORWELL ROLLS IN HIS GRAVE and watch the documentary online.