Plane crashes into Tampa office tower
 

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/05/tam...ampa.plane.jpg

A 15-year-old student pilot was at the controls of the plane when it took off from a Albert Whitted Municipal Airport in nearby St. Petersburg about 5 p.m., on Saturday, January 5, according to a spokesman for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department.

There were no immediate reports on casualties or injuries as a result of the crash.

It doesn't look good for the pilot.

Waste of a good Cessna. I guess there needs to be a pre-test for student pilots, to make sure they can tell the difference between a building and clear airspace.

Though I have a dark suspicion this will turn out to have been a suicide.

     Isn't ironic that a kid that's not old enough to drive in most states was piloting an aircraft? He was probably trying to lose the helicopter and seriously misjudged the distance. After all, it always works in the movies. Hmm, maybe I should check to see if he's up for a Darwin...

LOL, if not, he certainly needs to be. I mean, what was up with THAT? :eek: To top it off, there were 3 other reports of single engine planes crashing in various parts of the world...kinda spooky.

Aviation Safety Network

A great site to look up stats regarding plane crashes, near misses, and an archive of every incident that has happened since 1945.

He wasn't old enough to solo an aircraft either; there's no minimum age for dual instruction. I've allowed one of my daughters to operate the controls---under ***close*** supervision of course---when she was 6 or 7. The biggest problem was that not only was she too short to see over the control panel, but too short to see over the windowsill....and she liked seeing the ground go by. So we spent a lot of time in steep left-hand turns. :-)

Then she found out how to apply positive and negative G forces....I had to take control back from her at that point....her capacity for it was higher than mine. :-)

     My bad, a 15 year old can get a learning permit to drive with a licenced driver too...

     That's kids for you. Rough housing with mine I'll twist them into positions that would shatter my spine and tear my joints out of socket, and they'll laugh like crazy. Incredible.

CNN reports:

A note written by the 15-year-old boy who crashed a Cessna into a Tampa office building Saturday indicated he supported Osama bin Laden and that the act was deliberate, authorities said Sunday.

The note, which was found in the wreckage of the plane, "clearly stated that he had acted alone, without any help from anyone else," Tampa Police Chief Bennie Holder said. "He did, however, make statements expressing his sympathy for Osama bin Laden and the events which occurred September 11, 2001."

Undoubtedly, it was no accident that the target building was the Bank of America Building.

In my opinion, this is an act of terrorism, even though the authorities are trying to characterize it as a "suicide" at this time.

Is the American government, or the public, able to cope with cases of domestic terrorism, at this time?

Would the characterization be different if the suicide pilot were middle eastern, even if acting alone?

Ya know, it really bothers me when people use the word 'terrorism'. I'm not picking on you at all -- i've actually been thinking about this for quite some time. Just think of this little tirade as an intellectual foray. :)

The word "terrorism" seems like so much propaganda to me. The only thing is, I think i'm the only person the entire world that feels this way. So, maybe i'll just take this definition and analyse it a little bit.

The fact that no one can agree on a definition tells me that it doesn't really mean anything. When someone feels strongly about something, but can't define it, doesn't that tell you something? It is really best used when someone is trying to discredit someone. Why can't they just be called 'the enemy"?

Now, the part about, "invoking an emotional response" seems to be the most valid part of the definition to me. But ALL war evokes an emotional response in it's participants. Isn't that what war is? I'm not saying war is good -- war is terrible. But maybe the word 'war' has been desensitized enough that we feel the need to come up with a new word that sounds more evil.



By this definintion, anyone who uses force on another government is a terrorist. So, America is a terrorist nation for fighting Russia? After all, we were using force to bring about political change. It's all a matter of perspective.


Anyone who experiences force being used against them feels that that force is illegitimate, and also feels that they are innocent.

What exactly is this definition supposed to mean? People can't attack governments without being evil? Were the citizens of Argentina 'evil terrorists' for overthrowing their government? Are they immoral? Probably not. Why? Because they're not against the U.S. See how subject this is?


This seems like the most fair definition to me, although I could add that anything that's premeditated is also deliberate. This does seem like a pretty good definition, although if I ran around calling everyone who fit this definition a terrorist, I would probably be laughed at.


Anyway, i'll skip the other definintions 'cause I want to spend time with my fiancee. So, um, this isn't a flame or anything -- it's just something that i've really been thinking about. Intelligent contradictions welcome!

Quoted from a pre 9/11 article in The Guardian, a British newspaper, commenting on American government report classifying terrorist groups.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/174500...wheel300ap.jpg

The note and the refusal to respond to the Coast Guard Helicopter is evidence. And the act of flying a plane into an office building in the wake of 9/11 may be taken as evidence of intent of an individual with such a note on his person at the time. This was no accident. It was diliberate. It was premeditated. If the occupant of that office had been "going about his business" on Saturday, would it be murder/suicide, or suicide causing accidental death?

Questions are being asked about the risk of copy-cat terrorism. The terrorist attacks of September 11 exposed weaknesses in our systems to defend against similar attacks. The authorities must demonstrate that these weaknesses no longer exist.

The Director of Homeland Security should make it publicly clear that the next troubled individual that flies a plane without authority, and/or refuses to respond to military escort helicopters and fighter planes, will not be given the benefit of any doubt as to the intent of the rogue pilot and the danger that aircraft poses to civilians and our national security.

Or, are we only prepared to shoot down airliners?

Nothing ironic about it at all. He was piloting the aircraft illegally. Most states have minimum age for drivers licenses at 16 -- the same minimum age to solo an aircraft.

And there have been cases where children at various ages from 5 - 14 have killed themselves in automobiles.

Personally, unless the FAA does something stupid to not allow me to do so, I plan on giving my daughter flying lessons as early as she wants them. I like the idea that she would have some clue what to do should I pass out at the controls someday. :)

You and I both know that it would. The pilot wouldn't have been "troubled", he would have been a sick bastard, dirty towelhead, ignorant sandn**gger, and so forth. And God forbid had the pilot been 'black': "There they go again. Them black folk are always doing something stupid". Trust me: I've heard that more times than I can count. And let's not forget about the immediate and deliberate profiling that would occur afterwards. In THIS situation however, that won't happen, because heaven forbid, whites can not be profiled in such a manner (Is anyone watching the future Timothy McVeighs in this country? I doubt that the watch is not as hard and as focused as the watch is on people of color). Welcome to America.
:rolleyes:

It'll be interesting to see what will come from all of this over time.

ladysycamore, I don't know who said this but, "Wazzn't me!"

Ah, yes. The sandnooger. :)

thats why we need rubber, lots and lots of rubber. and cover every tall building with it. that way, if copy-cat attacks begin to happen, the planes will just bounce off :)

(sorry to joke for a moment, but the thought of this proved to be so amusing that ive been thinking about it for over twenty-four hours...:)...get a good mental picture of this, though... and now... chuckle... good.)

:)