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.)

:)

Well, the fact of the matter is, 8 of the last 9 people that flew planes into buildings were Arabs. If you want to count their entire force, we can bump it up to 19 out of 20 - I'm just counting the actual pilots here. So yeah, when they're looking for people to fly planes into buildings, I bet Arabs receive more attention.

Conversely, Eskimos are generally not suspects in insider trading criminal investigations. They just haven't had as much of a role in it as white guys have.

Blacks are looked at more closely for murders in Baltimore, because blacks kill more in Baltimore than whites do.

Whites are looked at more closely in serial murder cases, because whites are serial murderers more frequently than blacks are.

This doesn't happen because the police hate niggers or gooks; serial killers are not investigated by some cracker-hating Black Panther. These aren't stereotypes. It's just statistics.

We've seen photocopies of the "anthrax letters" so, why have we not seen the reported 6 page handwritten letter carried by the Bank of America Building "suicide" pilot, in which he mentions Osama and the attacks on the World Trade Centre. The actual words would allow the public to form a clearer picture of what happened here. Or, would that not be in the public interest? hmmm...

So far, all I've seen in the media is a couple of lines "paraphrasing" the letter by the police and authorities. Has the media asked for a copy of the letter, or a complete transcript? Has release of the complete transcript been refused? hmmm...

Uh oh ... it seems from a report on CNN tv that this troubled youth may have been of Arab descent, on his estranged father's side ... (The investigation is ongoing.) hmmm ...

Yeah, but you can't trust Inuits for anything. ;)

I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying. After what happened on 9/11, the first thing that came out of the mouths of people around me was "those fucking Arabs." However, I would say those examples are also forms of racial or ethnic profiling. If these rationales were strictly employed, I believe we would run the risk of creating new stereotypes, continuing current stereotypes, and indulging people in their self-fulfilling prophecies. I suspect the rationales are used already in some instances.

Sure, I agree, but I would think that that would just leave the "door wide open" for other Non-arabs to do something crazy. And then, when they do (because you know they will), then the public will have another hissy fit, talking about, "What happened??"



I've learned to not put anything past anybody. Anything's possible, even from those pesky Eskimos. (grin)



Ok, so does that make it "right" when an innocent black male is pulled over because blacks are looked at more closely? In the meantime, his white counterpart is committing a crime elsewhere, and getting away with it (more than likely).



And the reverse of what I said previously could be stated here as well. After all, the infamous Altanta child murders: committed by a black man. No one would have "thunk" it...but it was never out of the realm of possibility.



Mmm...well, I don't believe that completely...

Well, the only thing that I can say to that is that I'm coming from a POV of one that HAS been profiled (in other words, looked at more closely while shopping, aka "shopping while black"), and I can tell you that it sucks the biggest you-know-what. I've been tailed in certain retail stores, and it's highly annoying. I'm there to spend my hard earned dollars, not to get sticky fingers. In the meantime, while the clerks are so busy wondering when I'll snatch something off of the rack and run, that white gal that came in after me has already made her move, and she's in and out with her five finger discount (I've seen this happen).

Statistics be damned: Profiling is just plain wrong, IMO. There are too many people who have personal biases against certain cultures here in America. And now, the state of New Jersey has voted to not make racial profiling a crime. Ah, I see: and the hits (sometimes, literally) keep coming.:mad:

I agree with you on the fact that profiling is wrong. But it's a fact of life, no matter how irritating it is.

Being a young professional with hair that's probably nearing 3 feet long, a demeanor that dictates that I don't tuck my shirt in (read: "look like a slob"), a good little bit of facial hair and a habit of spending some of the money I make (read: going into stores a lot), I've been tailed numerous times. Why? 'Cause of the way I look. Young dudes with long hair are more mistrusted, apparently, 'cause I am treated lik e a criminal at the store. People follow me around, come keep a close eye on me, just sit and stare as I shop, etc. No doubt, some of them are thinking "We'll catch this dirtbag doing something."

Then there's the whole drug thing - everyone assumes that, because of said traits listed above (save for the fact that I spend the money I make), people assume I'm a druggie. I tell 'em "Nope. Never in my fucking life" they say "I don't believe that." Well fucking believe it, you mongrel idiot (no, not YOU! :)). Apparently every male with long hair, some whiskers on his face and an untucked shirt smokes a lot of pot, when, in my case, nothing could be farther from the truth. I was shot in the eye when I was 14 - my right eye is still red from it. I have been asked, on more than one occasion - "Hey man, you stoned or what?" - and they don't believe me when I say "No."

Unfortunately for me, younger kids shoplift more frequently than Eskimos do (or businessmen, or Data Entry Specialists, or Systems Engineers, of which I am one). And, unfortunately for me, younger people are generally thought to have a higher drug-usage rate (though I am ignorant of actual statistics pitting teenage use vs. young adult or middle age use). Statistically, I'm more likely to fit into these groups than the old lady in Electronics looking for a GameCube for her grandson. Statistics.

You <b>can</b> do a little something about it, though: if you know you're being tailed by someone, approach them. Tell them, very politely, "I'd like to speak to your manager right now." When the manager gets out there, tell them "Look, I've been a customer of your store for quite some time, and I really do enjoy shopping here. However, if you continue treating me like a criminal, I'll be forced to take my business elsewhere." Make sure to mention that you do not steal, have not stolen, and will not steal from their store. If they continue giving you shit, go elsewhere - they're not worth doing business with.

Anyway. I know it sucks, but there isn't much we can do about it. Statistics happen to work against us in these cases - not for us.

dham: I understand and respect your opinion on this matter. But, I can not agree with the term "us". Statistics will always work against ME. If you say that you are profiled because of age and looks, well, you'll eventually grow older, and perhaps change your look. However, I will ALWAYS be black, no matter the age or look, and therefore, will ALWAYS be profiled to some extent.

I know I <b>can</b> change my look. But view it this way:

Being black (african american? which do you prefer?) is a part of you. It just is. Your skin color is a part of you.

My long hair is a part of me.

I <b>can</b> change it, but I <b>won't</b>. It's just as much a part of me as anything else is, and it always will be. Sure, I bet I'll get it cut some day - but for now, it's a very defining characteristic. That's not something I'm willing to give up, even if I can.

As for the study in Texas - what do you expect in <b>Texas</b>? :)

It seriously is very disappointing though, and I'm sorry that it's one of those things you have to go through. I seriously would recommend talking to a manager though - what matters to them is MONEY (that's why they're watching you in the first place, right? They're afraid you might steal something, depriving them of revenue). If you mention that you spend lots of money there, and will cease to do so if they continue treating you like a criminal, there <b>is</b> a chance they'll listen.

And if not, you could always get me and sycamore to hand out a beat down. :)

While you two bicker over who is the worse-off victim, one of the secrets to life (I think) is that you cannot possibly be a victim unless you allow yourself to FEEL victimized.

People can treat you all kinds of ways, but they cannot control your thoughts.

Yesterday I read an account of this Afghani dude who was tortured to within an inch of his life by the Taliban because they wanted him to confess to spreading Christianity.

You guys think you're victims? Bad eye, skin color not in the majority? Cops give you the twice-over, people follow you in stores? Please. You should read this dude's story. Nearly electrocuted until he was only able to crawl to go to the bathroom which consisted of a bucket in another cell. Left with brain damage, practically unable to move some of his limbs. Not for some dumb reason like appearance: no, it was for no reason at all. But this guy, somehow somewhere, picked up some way of thinking about his situation where he is able to get past it. Why can't we do the same?

I believe our culture is messing with us when it tells us that we should care about what other people think about us. It is a very strange notion indeed. I wonder how it came to be.

I've read it. And I agree.

But I think you're kind of missing my point, and that is, it's just kind of the way it is. People are going to get looked at funny for a number of reasons, and we just need to live with it. I don't feel victimized - it's annoying, surely, but I know I have it pretty good. I think the point I was trying to make is that "discrimination" happens for a reason. So :PPPPPPPPPPPPP to you. :)

As for your parting comment - I care what some people think of me. Namely, Jenni, Megan, Andrea, Jen. Other than that, I'm pretty apathetic to others' "concerns" or feelings. And I don't change myself for whatever reason - I'm just fortunate enough to have friends that accept me for who I am and manage to put up with me. :)

You're all dancing around, but ignoring the important point. Is it profiling based upon logical facts or just profiling based upon human bias? Do dishevled kids with 3 foot long hair commit more crimes? That is the statistic that a 'profiler' must possess to perform profiling.

Again, it goes right back to a fundamental thread - do we make decisions based upon facts or based upon personal bias - first impressions - better known as racism.

The employee is only as effective as his managers. Did they provide the employee with the necessary facts, statistical studies, and other necessary information to perform profiling? If not, then why were they so negligent. Profiling without the facts is simply another form of racism. Where are the numbers? What are the facts? Only then can a profiler profile.

Jsut to join in the victimfest try being under 18. First of all ignorant adults don't take you seriosuly becaue they refuse to realsie that you may have opinions as valid as thiers ;). But seriously, if i had a penny for every time i've been served after a businessmen even though i ordered first...grrrr....Paying with large notes, generous tips or paying by credit card seem to fix it instantly but.....The point is that people can disrciminate (and do) on anyhting, age, race, sex, religion, political views, you are only a victim if you want to be. The logic that says more blacks shoplift than whites (random gues/exmaple) is no justification for following every black person that enters the store. Personally? Fight back, for instance, take something off the shelf, then put it in your pocket, then pay for it at the counter, piss em off ;)
Or pay for $5 cafe bill of a $100 note. Best one is resteraunts - i'm not sure what american law is like but you can demand to inspect the kitechns at any time as a customer, give it a shot, most reseraunters know the drill - they can't stop you unless you interfere with cooking. If you see thinks like cracked plates you can report them to the relavent authorities for having unhygenic kitchens forcing them to undergo a through inspection, a time consuming and occasionally expenisve operation. (just don't do it if you want to eat there again ;) )

*cough*

*cough cough*

*cough cough cough cough cough cough cough cough cough cough cough cough cough*

*cough*

My, my, my, what are you implying? My good fellow i hope you aren't suggesting that i was refering to conversation or person in particular, i would take great offence at such a baseless and insulting accusation! I never imply anything, i prefer simple straighforward language rather than exploit the idiosyncrasies of english to obscufate some hidden quiddity in my words. I hope you get better soon, that looks like a terrible cough indeed.

Such an erudite young man, Jaggy prefers intentionally to obfuscate his meaning with spelling errors. I luv it. :)

OK, everybody on the Cellar who's never been under 18, raise your hands. Some of us have more experience at being under 18 than others, of course, but those of us who don't die early all ultimately achieve the same quota. Unless we're able to pass for older than we are, of course.

"VIctimfest" indeed. Tony's point about self-defined victimhood is on-point; there's a substantial "cult of the victim" in some political circles. After a while it gets old (if you'll pardon the expression) to those that aren't playing the game, especially when it's used as an argument for compensatory special privileges..

dham's talk about elments of your identity being an indelible part of that identity is bang-on as well. I'm thinking of Stan's dog "Sparky" (played by George Clooney) on South Park--("Sit up, Sparky. Beg, Sparky. Don't be gay, Sparky".)

You suppress or disguise parts of your identity to please or mollify others at your peril. And I suspect that the only solution to cops who watch black/arab/female/queer people more closely may be having more black/arab/female/queer cops.

Actually, I suppose getting all four in one should be some kind of triple-word-score. But finding a cop with no personal biases will be quite a trick.

smartarseism aside, two clear differnces are, particualry in some cases people haven't been under 18 for a long time, and times do change. Seondly, i doubt kids had the same kind of disposeable incomes kids have today (in some cases) which illustrates the gap perfectly, if these people working in these places did realise that, they would (and when they do, do) serve you like any other customer.



Doesn't mean it has to come out on the job, i thought that is what being professional about in these jobs was about. btw its personal not persinal, i thought nic would have pointed that out.

So you're saying it's uniquely difficult to be under 18 now? Seems to me I heard that one when I was under 18. :-) It's always something....either the clerk won't take your money as fast as you want him too, or you're subject to being drafted and having your ass shot off in some foriegn war. We had to walk to school in the snow every day, too....uphill....both ways. :-)

I wonder if it's really true that folks under 18 have more disposable income today than they did, say, twenty or thirty years ago, if we adjust for inflation. Of course it's another question if this would entitle them to better treatment in retail establishments. When I worked in retail, I got a lot more hassles from shoppers who were under 18. Of course, *I* was under 18 at the time too.

I fixed the spelling error, probably before nic even saw it.

Correct me if I'm wrong ... but isn't the draft an "over 18" issue?

Are we digressing here, or are we getting back to the thread and some connection with the "troubled kid" who flew into the Bank of America Building?

Are there two threats to our security, foreign terrorists and troubled teenagers? Is John Walker a foreign terrorist or a troubled young man? Let's check his ethnicity and see which he might be. Was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist? I think so. Yet, he was always called the Oklahoma City bomber.

Colombine?


God no, probably easier than ever but i do say kids (least round here) do have some serious disposeable income, a signifigant aprt of that no doubt is the people i know but..
Better? No, equal yes, if you're spending as much as the guy who's 20 years older than you next to you, its in the businesses interst to treat you equally, you are of equal value.

My point was merely pointing out another form or basis for discrimination, lets leave it at that?

Only if you waited until then to worry about it. Once you turned 18 when the draft was active, it was too late...

THANK YOU!

More than two threats I'm afraid. No one should be above or beyond reproach, IMO. Certainly, no one should be singled out, while others are allowed to walk away.



Exactly.

Oh, but he was a member of the armed services: he could possibly be a threat to national security. He was just..."troubled". How about we just single out that Arab or Sikh Indian instead? It's MUCH easier, donchaknow. ;)

I agree with you on that one. But, as I'm sure you know, it doesn't make for "good copy" to make such "demands" on our government, law enforcement, and other units of authority. You'd be a "troublemaker" and "unpatriotic". Heaven forbid that you merely ask for more information about this issue. ;-)

Hmm, indeed. That will more than likely be a mystery for a while. However, had it been one of those "dirty Arab/Muslims"...well...

NO.

He was <b>REPEATEDLY</b> called a terrorist. The Oklahoma City Bombing has been called, by even major news outlets, "the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil" - but the last day anyone ever said that was September 10th.

You're twisting facts here to add to your argument - that's called "spin", and that's okay. The problem is that they're not really facts. McVeigh has been called a terrorist. He was a terrorist. He used terror to get his message across. No one ever said he wasn't.

I think that one of the aspects of the definition of terrorism is the intention to have the act of violence felt as a threat to the security of persons other than the direct victims of the assault.

In that definition would be included any number of middle eastern terrorist organizations, as well as terrorists acting alone or in small groups: McVeigh, Bishop, Columbine's Trench Coat Mafia and copy-cat mafias, the Unibomber, the anthrax mailer and others.

The official American government rhetoric of the war on terrorism has been refined " to root out foreign terrorists with international reach" in order to narrow the war on terrorism and, by definition, exempt from the current "war" such terrorists as McVeigh, the IRA and Arafat from the definition.

Of course, other countries, allies in the war on terrorism, accepting the current Amercian government's definition of terrorism may have a different view of "foreign" and "international reach" don't they?

As time went on, he was called a terrorist. Initially, he was merely called the "Oklahoma City Bomber," at least from my personal recollections. I remember some people using the word "terrorist," but I don't remember it being as widespread until recently...before 9/11 of course. Was he a terrorist? Certainly, at least IMO.

Do you think all those militias that were behind the 8-ball after OK City are building their machine up again, b/c of 9/11?

*watching a History Channel show on the KKK*

Rho just brought up an interesting point. I understand that we are trying to fight terrorism internationally, but if we are in a "War on Terrorism," could the Klan be considered part of that war? Should they be?

Fortunately, the Klan has toned down their, uh, "message". I think they're all worthless pieces of shit - of that, there is no doubt. However, if they're not really "terrifying" anymore, I don't know if we can consider them "terrorists". Maybe we could just deport them to Africa or something?

I think we're quite likely to see the letter eventually...sooner if it's in the hands of the NTSB, later if the Tampa cops have it, where somebody may try to seal the record because Bishop was a juvenile. Certainly NTSB should end up with a copy, since as an aircraft incident it's their baliwick. It will probably be FOIAed from them if they don't release it. Most evidence NTSB deal with eventually is released, including CVR recordings right up to the point of impact. However, they haven't released the ground tapes they have of UA93.

It would appear that one thing Bishop was quite "troubled" about was *being* a "dirty Arab". His dad's birth name was evidently "BIshara", and converations he had with a teacher after 9/11 suggest he was feeling terrible conflict about his Dad's ethnicity.

True, they have tried to "mainstream" themselves. They tried to support a show on my university's radio station (an NPR station)...and lost in court. UM-St. Louis's argument: To have a group such as the Klan supporting a program on a radio station run by the school (therefore, by the state) could drive away minority students. Made sense to me...race relations weren't exactly the greatest on our campus as it was.

They also adopted a stretch of Interstate 55 in South St. Louis County. They won this case in court. Their sign has been torn down several times, to the point that St. Louis County Police had to start watching it. Someone was finally caught tearing it down one night. The man made no apologies for doing it though.

This statement from a Klan site almost makes them sound like decent people...ALMOST.

[edit]

Whoops...that went more off-topic than it was already going. My actual point was that we definitely need to look within our own borders for terrorist groups. We've already beem looking for terrorists within our borders, but the main focus has been on "foreign" terrorists. Given the Klan's past activities, I don't think it would be unfair to give them a look-over. For now, I am satisfied with Matt Hale not being admitted to the Illinois bar. :)

I wish we had more info regarding Walker and Bishop. The fact that Walker was fighting with the Taliban damn near seals his fate...fighting for a regime that denied people of their basic rights. But the info that I've heard on Bishop is contradictory at best. Was he truly a terrorist sympathizer, or disturbed beyond belief?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I've been gone for awhile so let me catch up a bit. The first time I heard the term 'Domestic Terrorism' was before they had arested McVeigh. The guy that was my boss at the time had a sister-in-law in the building when it happened. I remeber clearly speaking with him about it and the words 'terrorist attack' was reapeted constantly. Not a month down the road, the next day. Of course if you remember it was originally reported that the people believed responsible were 'three men of arab decent'. So you could argue that was the reason for it...

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Next subject, the KKK has not exactly toned down. What they've done is grown smarter. They still work hard at recruitment, but they recognise their message is unpopular right now. So, instead of being the big bad nasty death squad of the past they pretend to be civic minded activists. What's worse is they don't think it's an act. They've been taught to speak more intelligently, so their message sounds more reasonable. They've helped set-up more (by the current standards) extreme white supremisist groups. Who then condem them for not being tough enough. Again making them sound less insane. This scare's me. I want my lunatics acting insane, they're easier to spot that way. This has been going on for awhile now. I remember about a decade ago when they set up shop in north west Arkansas a black guy I worked with said they had asked all the african-americans in the area to a big picnic to show how much they had changed. (He didn't go) The fact that he wouldn't back down doesn't mean that he wasn't scared.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;As far as the kid goes, my original opinion is largely unchanged. The big difference is that I don't think he should get a Darwin award, he offed himself on purpose, suicides are automaticaly excluded. Heck, I'd love to hear some jokes on this. Of the "What's the last thing that goes through a bugs mind when he hit's a windshield going 60 mph?" variety. He wanted to kill. In my book you lose all consideration given to a victim when that person person seeks to victimize others. I actually chuckled when I found out he was seeking to do real damage and instead wound up doing almost nothing. He was confused? Tough shit. I know people who have been through much worse and they never killed anyone over it. I have no sympthy for him.

I agree with everything in Whit's post.

Furthermore, Bishop is no less a terrorist because, in the result, he was less effective and only killed himself. And he's a terrorist whether he acted alone, or not.

If Bishop had crashed his plane into MacDill AFB, he'd be on par with the attackers on the Pentagon. If he had crashed his plane into either the Delta or Southwest airliners in the vicinity, he would have caused much more death and disruption of the airline industry, generally on par with the Pennsylvania crash.

I think Bishop chose to be a terrorist. Surely he was misguided or self-deluded. I think Bishop sought infamy by targetting the Bank of America Building because his perception was that the attacks on the WTC were where all the notoriety was focused by the media.

I don't think Bishop's attack should be viewed as a suicide, at all. There is no indication that he was suicidal, that he wanted to end his life. Quite the contrary. The Al Qaeda hijackers were not committing suicide. Their deaths were necessarily incidental to their acts. In their minds martyrdom, sacrifice not suicide. So too, Bishop. He didn't want to die. He wanted to make a statement. Living through the event was not important. Sacrificing one's life is believed by martyrs to add emphasis to their statements ... but death was not his objective.

Terrorism was. I think Bishop wanted to join in the terrorism, if not join with the terrorists. I think he might also have been confused about his middle eastern ancestry. I suspect the evidence is in the note ... and that's why we are not seeing it. In the famous line from A Few Good Men, a movie about Gitmo, the government believes, you can't handle the truth.

I do recall the media referring to the bombing as "domestic terrorism," but as far as McVeigh, I don't recall them referring to him as a "terrorist" until maybe the past couple of years, if that.

*recalls watching CNN after coming back from class the morning of the bombing...in a matter of hours, CNN had a title for the attack already--Terror in the Heartland*

I stand corrected ...
 

There's a pretty severe contradiction here, since Whit said it was a suicide.
Um....other than flying an airplane directly into a building.

My own belief at the moment is that Bishop was already emotionally distressed--being an adolescent male can be a very rough ride. When 9/11 hit the fan he was unable to cope with a conflict he perceived between having some arab ethnicity and wanting to be an All-American boy, grow up and join the AIr Force. While his chosen manner of death may have had a symbolic value that he felt linked him to his absent father, I don't see any evidence that he was trying seriously to kill people anyone other than himself. I doubt he looked much further than this being the final act in his own personal melodrama.

In this sense it's rather similar to the Columbine mess, which at least had a much stronger indication that "terror" was an objective.If either tragedy had a genuine political motivation, that message was so poorly conveyed as to pretty much be lost.

I don't see either of these incidents as rising to what we ordinarily consider as "terrorism".

I thought that Whit was saying that Bishop shouldn't get a Darwin because his death wasn't accidental stupidity. It is in that sense that Whit called it a suicide. Further in the post Whit says that Bishop wanted to kill and sought to victimize others. So I don't think there is as great a contradiction in saying I agree with what Whit said. I would agree that Bishop's death is more of a suicide than an accident, but I don't think that the clues to why it happened are found in the analysis of suicide, per se.

I think there is a big difference between saying he wanted to end his life, and being prepared to end his life to achieve a result or make a statement. He made a statement ... let's read it. In the same way, the Al Qaeda hijackers were not suicidal but prepared to sacrifice their lives to achieve a result. One cannot argue that the fact that they piloted planes into the WTC is proof that they were suicidal.

I would add, that the one point in Whit's post that I didn't agree with, is that this is a subject to joke about. I don't share that opinion.

I suspect the message was clearly conveyed in the note ... and that it has been obscured for political reasons, as I've stated.

Considering the note was found in Bishop's pocket after the crash, he didn't pick a very effective way of publishing it. He did have a computer, and *could* have arranged for it to publish online after a delay. Simply putting it on a Geocities page with his name in it would probably be good enough; after the incident it would be certain to be found by the press. Maybe he just didn't think of that. He certainly ran a big risk that the note would *never* be found, if there had been a post-crash fire.

But I doubt that the reason we haven't seen the note is political, although of course I may be wrong. Typically there's a significant delay (as there was with the Daschle letters) before evidence like this is published in toto, waiting until it's nearly *certain* that the publication won't close any investigative doors forever...situations like that "how did you know the murder was comitted by stabbing? That was not in any published report!" twist in murder mysteries.

But if significant time gores by and we still haven't seen the note, even my suspicions will be aroused as to why. But we're not there yet.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For the record I didn't mean to sugest that this idiot kid was in any way killing himself out of depresion or anthing else that is usually associated with suicide. He died to send a message. Only for the reason of passing curiosity do I care to hear it.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Which brings up something else, I intend to make fun of that message. Nic said he didn't think this was something to joke about, I disagree for a couple of reasons.
1 For starters killing yourself to make a point is just plain silly. Just like hurting your foot kicking your car when it breaks down. It hurts you (well unless you die really quick) and does nothing to improve your situation personally. I can't remeber which general it was (Patton maybe?) that said, "Don't die for your country, live for it. The trick is getting the other guy to die for his." I think that's badly misquoted but you get the picture. Anyone rember the correct quote?
2 This guy wanted to be taken seriously. That's reason enough. Just on principle I try not to give violent idiots or killers (or in this case would-be killer) anything they want. He tried to kill people that had done nothing to him personally because he was freakin' confused... So, I laugh at him. I hope the next guy like him hears me.
3 It kills the glamour of it. I know how stupid that sounds, hear me out. Right now there are kids out there dumb enough to think this was cool. I don't know any but I'm pretty sure they exist. If they hear a bunch of jokes about it they are far less likely to follow suit.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oh well, have fun. See you in a couple of days.

something to the effect of "Nobody ever won a war by dying for their country. They won it by making the other poor bastard die for his." - and it was indeed Patton.

OK...I stand corrected on that point.

Interesting fragment from the AP wire:

The two teenagers used to message each other by computer almost every day. But Favreau, 15, said his friend had recently seemed to brush him off, ignoring his messages.
Favreau also said that in spite of the note found in Bishop's pocket, the teenage pilot "hated bin Laden."
He said Bishop had expressed sympathy for the victims of the September 11 attacks in a class paper.
"I think he wrote the note to get publicity so people would know who he was when he died," Favreau said. "And they do."

news flash from Fla
 

The teenage pilot's actions are being blamed on his acne medicine.

There you have it.

Brian

i wonder about the logic of the studies that show a common symptom of that medicine is depression ... isn't depression a common symptom of the acne?

BriaR i assume you were refering to this?

Actually, they're both symptoms of adolescence.

*laughz
too true

Actually, Jag. I was more referring to the following link

http://inq.philly.com/content/inquir...ramsland10.htm

It mentions the teenagers taking Accutane, a prescription acne medication
that has been linked to depression and suicide in some studies.

There is more on the Florida Times Union website archives.

Brian