A small airplane has crashed into a building in New York City. It hit a 50 story condo on 524 E. 72nd Street, and part of the building is on fire. There are no indications yet that this is anything other than an accident, the building is right on the East River, and so it is possible that it was hit by a small plane or helicopter that got lost:
Witness Sarah Steiner told CNN that fires were burning on the ground. “It looks like the plane just flew into someone’s living room there.” “It looks as if the aircraft didn’t go into the building but fell down,” she said. “It may be part of the debris burning on the ground.” Steiner said that when she arrived, she saw fire shooting out of two windows on the 30th floor of the 50-story building. Video from the scene shows at least three apartments in the high-rise fully engulfed in flames. [Link]Television views of the fire showed flames shooting out of four windows and smoke that streamed up into the sky, visible for miles. [Link]
<
p>THERE IS NO INDICATION OF TERRORISM:
“We haven’t heard from any of our facilities that anything’s missing.” New York City government source told CNN there are “no indications of terrorism…” [Link]The FBI has told the BBC that there is no indication that the crash is terrorism-related. [Link]
A senior Homeland Security official said there is no indication of terrorism, but rather it the incident appeared to be a “terrible accident“. [Link]
<
p>But these are the sorts of events that make people scared and angry, and these are the sorts of times when people feel justified acting out their racism as a hate crime. Please be careful tonight. I know I’ll be looking over my shoulder as I get in and out of my car, especially once the news gets out. It’s times like these that I wish I lived in a large city on the coasts, and not a smallish conurbation in the midwest where I encounter enough racism even on a regular basis.
<
p>UPDATE 1 :
<
p>The fire seems to be largely out now:
16 engine and 9 ladder companies have responded; most of the fire has been extinguished…. A total of four people have been confirmed dead – two people from the plane, two people from the building. Additionally, the aircraft was a Cirrus 20, which supposedly has a parachute for emergencies. [Link]
Multiple shots of the building right now available from Gawker.
Update 2: Stranger than fiction – blame the Yankees?
New York Yankees manager Joe Torre says the plane that crashed into a building in Manhattan is registered to team pitcher Cory Lidle[Link]
What could be more all American than that? Maybe it will put an end to all the speculation that this is somehow terror related.
Update 3: It is Cory Lidle’s plane. While this was a tragedy where 2-4 people may have died, I feel no guilt for the relief coursing through my veins right now. This was the only way that a plane crashing into a NYC building would have been conclusively decoupled from terrorism in its reporting – it was a famous person, an athlete, a YANKEE, whose plane it was. This will change the entire framing of the event.
Because what you wrote:
Was just pretty rude. You talk about people panicking and running around like anyone did it. That didn’t even happen when 9/11 happened. Asking people to not have any responses and telling them they are stupid for feeling apprehension about an event is unreasonable.
It’s unfortunate that the media turns any small event into a “it’s not terrorism” circus but the power of suggestion can be disheartening. When the bombings happened in London and Mumbai we all panicked and called everyone we knew. You don’t know too many details and if you aren’t physically there you will call to find out.
Two planes and two choppers crash in NYC after 9/11, the media calls it all terrorism, a plane crashed into the Empire State, and you’re stuck in Flower Power. Nice.
‘Ask Ennis where he lives’ is not a trick question.
Nope, only commercial passenger jets. Look at the very first line of the post:
A small airplane has crashed…
So terrorism can only be associated with large scale events? If a single terrorist intentionally flew a plane into a small building, or a suicide bomber walked into a mall – would that not be considered terrorism? Because those events are obviously much smaller than a huge plane flying into a building.
When Ennis’ post went up, there was little info available. We were going by the info that a plane crashed into a NYC building. Had he not mentioned the fact, very clearly, that this wasn’t terrorist related, we would have had 100 comments asking about whether it was related to terrorism.
I dont believe so. Lets give people more credit. As our President might say, when history is written, 9-11 wont be more than a comma.
i guess the issue for me is the evidence you use
this sentence is so misleading, and i don’t know why you insist on using this to back up your point, when it backs up mine?
yes, a plane crashed into houses in queens WEEKS after 9/11 … are we honestly wondering why people may have thought it might be terrorist related?
yes, a plane crashed into the empire state building OVER 50 YEARS AGO … i don’t know what the initial reaction was then
yes, 2 helicopters crashed in the east river after 9/11 … why is this even included here?
and yes, yesterday another small plane hit a building on the island of manhattan …
please stop the rhetoric that it happens all the time and if you don’t think so, you’re a flower child
I’m going to back up Sonia Kaur’s last three comments (#94, 100, and 104).
There is far too much overanalysing going on here on SM, in typical desi style — it seems to be a repeated pattern of behaviour that occasionally increases markedly on this blog from time to time, and it’s been happening again in recent times. Look at what happened when JOAT made that comment about sexual harassment from other ethnic groups — people took her comment out of context and the next thing you knew, there were posts on top of posts piling on and JOAT having to give clarifications which were practically legal documents in their tone and detail.
Context, people. And common sense. Both are very important.
There were reports of an aircraft crashing into a building in New York. Details were initially fuzzy. Given the precedent of 9/11, of course the first thing many people will think of is “Oh no, not again”. The more level-headed individuals will leave room for doubt with regards to the possibility of this being pilot-error or some kind of mechanical malfunction, but that terrible precedent will still be what huge numbers of people will immediately think of. Hell, it’s the first thing many people here in London thought yesterday when they initially heard what had happened and saw the pictures on CNN etc.
If there are reports of an explosion on an underground train here in London, most British people’s immediate reaction will be to think of 7/7. You will not necessarily have panicking Brits streaming into the streets all over the UK, screaming “It’s the jihadis again !”, but in one corner of their minds, their initial thought will be the possibility of another terrorist attack, at least until all the relevant facts come to light in order to confirm or refute their concerns.
This is just human nature. And unfortunately, it’s a sign of the times.
It’s not right to lynch Ennis just because he tried to “do a good thing” and let people (especially those at work, who will have internet access but not necessarily access to the major television news channels) know a) that there was an accident in NYC with, at first glance anyway, ominous overtones of “the last time it happened”, and b) that it was most definitely not linked to terrorism. In fact, him typing “there is no indication of terrorism” in capital letters and in bold font was the very first thing my eye was drawn to in his article, and it’s probably the most important part of what he wrote, considering what many people may have initially thought of.
There is no need for anyone here to tie himself (or herself) into knots regarding Ennis’s article. The contents and the tone actually make perfect sense, considering the nature of the incident, the most notable precedent for it during the past 5 years, and — unfortunately — the era we currently live in.
It’s not anything more complicated than that.
Kid, I am speaking of the often irrational impulse of human fear. It is understandable. If you still don’t comprehend, go read a history book, and spare me the cold comfort of your detached “intellect”.
however, Ennis’s immediate response in his post is not cool. But then again, it’s not like he’s journalist or anything…
however, Ennis’s immediate response in his post is not cool.
It’s so not cool to think that hate crimes are, like, real and stuff.
you use helicopter crashes, houses = buildings, but have a problem with someone mixing ‘small plane’ and ‘commercial jet’?
by the way, ‘a small plane’ was the exact description given in the initial reports of the crash into the wtc … we gotta love hindsight
no, lady, hysterics aren’t cool.
his post was about being cautious of hate crimes in the event that some try to associate this event with terrorism. so what was hysterical/not cool about it?
This has got to be one of the strangest conversations in my brief monkey-memory. Further proof that you humans are weird.
Manish, someone needs to take a deep breath. The media discourse about this news event was already being shaped long before Ennis posted a word. For him to respond to that — and obviously, he is implicitly being critical of that discourse in the process — is hardly “irresponsible.” On the other hand, given the message he intended to convey, for him to have ignored that discourse altogether arguably might well have been. Correct me if I’m wrong, but what you really seem to be saying is that this story was irrelevant to be posting about at all — that the concern about public assumptions about terrorism and potential backlash to our communities is just something he should have ignored and wished away.
And mind you, some of us are more vulnerable to backlash than others, and just to put a finer point on it, some of us are more vulnerable to backlash than either you or me — so you may not be best situated to judge the potential consequences. Which leads me to….
Not sure I understand what you are implying with this one. Surely you don’t think that hate crimes and hysteria don’t happen here in New York, do you? Of course you don’t. And you shouldn’t. So what are you getting at?
Rajni the Monkey —
Sigh. Ain’t that the truth.
Let me simplify.
When you know from the get-go that the aircraft was a small plane, it is inaccurate and irresponsible to whip up public fear by mentioning terrorism.
That’s fact, not rhetoric. Whether it happened precisely on E. 72nd St. for your viewing convenience is irrelevant: small planes crash into buildings due to pilot error all the time, and it has nothing to do with terrorism.
This kind of coverage in the MSM got Dubya re-elected.
And that has ever happened in the U.S. when?
See, houses are buildings, but small planes are not commercial jets. I think you’re confusing the word ‘building‘ with the word ‘skyscraper.’
Precisely. The initial 9/11 reaction by those who hadn’t witnessed it was that it was most likely a small plane and it was most likely an accident. If you look at the entire history of plane crashes before 9/11 and after 9/11, that was an accurate assumption.
I don’t worry about you being comforted by “intellect”, “reason” or “facts” 😉
Quite the opposite. Look at how it’s presented– boldface, highlight, repetition of ‘terrorism.’ Media research shows people discard words which negate and focus on the word itself, in this case terrorism. It’s akin to ‘please do not think about a pink elephant.’ It should not even enter the post. It’s irrelevant. Including terrorism in a post about every plane crash, the way the MSM does, is a massive distortion of facts.
This post is presented much like MSM evening news. And this blog is smarter than that.
I have no objection to ‘be careful.’ That wasn’t what was hyped here.
OK – let me reframe. This was the first time a tall manhattan skyscraper catch on fire, visible across the entire city, because a plane ran into it.
Again, and again. I wasn’t worried so much about our commentors jumping to conclusions. I was worried about the man on the street jumping to conclusions.
I was afraid. Fear mongering, I dunno. But race violence happens now, it happens against browns, and it happens in particular against Sikhs. I was afraid that the risk of it had gone up. Call it my own personal threat level going up from blue to yellow.
Maybe you were not afraid. You could always ignore my post. But let me ask you – have you ever been threatened physically as a result of being brown? Do you know somebody who has?
It’s happened to me. It’s happened to people I know. And I have read almost all of the reports of violent incidents. So it’s very real to me.
Do I think it’s a very likely thing to happen? No, I don’t. But I don’t think that terrorism is all that likely in the grand scheme of things either (even though I know several people who have died or been injured in different terrorist attacks in different countries).
Still, it’s one of the many daily precautions I take. I brush my teeth. I exercise. I make sure that the treads on my shoes are not worn out before I walk on an icy day. I avoid driving when visibility is low.
I don’t live in fear, but I accept that these are risks that I need to manage.
Manish – it doesn’t matter if this was or wasn’t like 9-11. Do you think that the average person on the street would have connected it to 9/11? Remember – building on fire, smoke billowing? And do you think that the risk of violence would have gone up if people have continued to see it in that way?
I agree with you that people shouldn’t see it that way. I also don’t think they should see me and think of OBL. But I have to live and deal with people’s perceptions. That’s true even in NYC.
That’s why I blogged about the event.
I wanted to make 3 points:
You’re disagreeing with me mentioning #1, even when a skyscraper in NYC is smoking b/c a plane hit it. You’re saying that I give credence to the idea that it might be terrorism, even by disagreeing with it, just b/c I boldfaced the word?
And what about #2 and #3?
Except that the potential assumptions about terrorism, and consequent backlash, were the very predicate of the “be careful” message. Nothing else. If you don’t think it should have entered the post, then what you are really — almost necessarily — seem to be saying is that there shouldn’t have been a post on this at all. If that’s what you believe, then fine — but then maybe you really should just say that directly. And if you did, it would be in a bit of tension with what you continue on to say.
And no offense to your original vision for this site, which I believe in wholeheartedly, but I also think that equating Ennis’s post here to the MSM, in terms of power or ability to shape public discourse, is a bit much. The posts here don’t exist in a vacuum when it comes to public dialogue and discussion, and it would have been odd for him to have pretended otherwise. Besides, the point about media irresponsibility more generally is a fair one, and it’s been amply made by several comments in this thread, including some from both me and you, and including some of the very first comments — and I doubt that Ennis disagrees with the general concern, especially as it plays out in the MSM. But for you to go on from there to call Ennis “irresponsible” seems more than a bit nitpicky, and rather misplaced.
Pied Piper out — all I really wanted to do in this thread (at least today, since I stated my peace on some of this stuff yesterday) was defend The Smiths from Abhi’s anti-panicism.
What’s the big deal? Ennis reacted in the moment, blogger-like, and then corrected it. That’s the essence of blogging and how it differs from the MSM: the update and the comments section.
my viewing convenience? are you really this jaded?
we’re talking about planes crashing into buildings* in manhattan (within our lifetimes), it happened 5 years ago and it happened yesterday. that’s it. stop saying it happens all the time. we are not talking about every object of flight that has crashed on every corner of the earth.
*yes, there is a difference between a building (no matter how small) and a house (no matter how large)
You can say that again.
And Jai said it but jesus the overanalyzing of exactly what was said, how it was said and what should have really been said is really damn irritating. Ennis wrote what he thought was of value to the readers. When someone sent me a note “Is the plane that went into the building in NYC anywhere near you?” I went blank and started researching. Even NPR which I listen to live did not go on the air a good 20 minutes after it happened.
We had a fire in the building a few months ago, let me tell you people panic and they are justified. They are human, they are entitled to feel fear. It’s all good. No one was trampling over each other no one panicked and went beserk. All in context. Lets all keep perspective and not get all hairy with the ‘you should have really not said it this way’ business. The way I see it, it’s his blog and Ennis can say whatever the hell he wants.
I guess I percieved histrionics, without really knowing where Ennis was coming from, which now I do. Thanks for the insight, bro.
If a Sikh or Muslim in traditional garb was attacked on the street, would you be as quick to to say “it was just a mugging… happens all the time in large cities” or would you mention the possibility of it being a hate crime, especially after 9/11.
When I am in the Mid-West and I hear tornado warnings, my first reaction is to think about 9-11 (remember the Islamo-nazis who committed 9-11!) and that people similar to the 9-11 perpetrators have launched another sinister plan to knock down our great silos.
On a serious note, I think Ennis does have a point. Unlike some other people here, he was more concerned about the reaction to the crash than about the crash itself.
Yeah… that’s the new terrorist plan.. “Operation Breaking Wind”. Apparently you’ve gotten a whiff of it…