Looks like some anti-IRS whackjob has crashed his plane into a big office building in Austin.
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/blotter/entries/2010/02/18/austin_police_say_a_plane.html
The suspect's name is Joe Stack, from San Marcos. After reading his diatribe, there's little doubt he did it:
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/blotter/entries/2010/02/18/internet_note_posted_by_man_li.html?cxntcid=breaking_news
CNN's reporting that he set his own home on fire today, too.
Why the FOTARD headline? No more of a terrorist than someone who opens fire in a school yard.
More like a schizoid lone whack-a-doodle:
"Instead I got busy working 100-hour workweeks. Then came the L.A. depression of the early 1990s. Our leaders decided that they didn’t need the all of those extra Air Force bases they had in Southern California, so they were closed; just like that. The result was economic devastation in the region that rivaled the widely publicized Texas S&L fiasco. However, because the government caused it, no one gave a smile about all of the young families who lost their homes or street after street of boarded up houses abandoned to the wealthy loan companies who received government funds to “shore up” their windfall. Again, I lost my retirement
"Years later, after weathering a divorce and the constant struggle trying to build some momentum with my business, I find myself once again beginning to finally pick up some speed. Then came the .COM bust and the 911 nightmare. Our leaders decided that all aircraft were grounded for what seemed like an eternity; and long after that, ‘special’ facilities like San Francisco were on security alert for months. This made access to my customers prohibitively expensive. Ironically, after what they had done the Government came to the aid of the airlines with billions of our tax dollars … as usual they left me to rot and die while they bailed out their rich, incompetent cronies WITH MY MONEY! After these events, there went my business but not quite yet all of my retirement and savings.
"By this time, I’m thinking that it might be good for a change. Bye to California, I’ll try Austin for a while. So I moved, only to find out that this is a place with a highly inflated sense of self-importance and where damn little real engineering work is done. I’ve never experienced such a hard time finding work. The rates are 1/3 of what I was earning before the crash, because pay rates here are fixed by the three or four large companies in the area who are in collusion to drive down prices and wages… and this happens because the justice department is all on the take and doesn’t give a love about serving anyone or anything but themselves and their rich buddies."
Jeez that's a disjointed read. I'm still trying to figure out what the whole issue was with the tax code, but I'm starting to think perhaps he was claiming independent contractor status or someone else was and he got socked big time for back SS tax is all I can figure. Talk about a rambling, crazy read. He makes comprehending Shadows a snap.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 18, 2010, 01:06:42 PM
Why the FOTARD headline?
To get you to read it, silly. ::)
But, seriously, what's the difference between a terrorist and a criminal who wants to cause massive property damage and deaths in a spectacular way? I see no difference.
Was it a desire to simply cause property damage and death, or a last ditch attempt to bring the nations eyes to a problem that he saw with this country that he couldn't seem to get anyone to see before? Granted he seems to have strayed from reality long before, but he is correct that something in our system is broken and no one cares to see it. While he has used an abhorred method in his attempt to bring this fact to light, one must stop to ask if this is more of a result of banging his head against the wall of bureaucracy.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on February 18, 2010, 01:11:45 PM
To get you to read it, silly. ::)
But, seriously, what's the difference between a terrorist and a criminal who wants to cause massive property damage and deaths in a spectacular way? I see no difference.
I had not gotten all the way to the end of his diatribe when I posted that. His motives are definitely more along the lines of a Timothy McMonster after reading his spiel about spilling blood for freedom (paraphrasing). Kind of weird there's a Waco connection too, if it turns out the plane actually came from there or was rented from there, etc.
They had some contradictory statements from officials in the story you posted (perhaps they interviewed investigators from different ends of the parking lot ;) ) and the copy editor selected the most sensationalistic headline available from the quotes.
Be interesting to hear what we learn about this guy in the coming days. Oddly enough, a plane crashed into a building out in Amarillo yesterday, though anti-government sentiment doesn't appear to have had anything to do with it.
Quote from: custosnox on February 18, 2010, 01:18:14 PM
Was it a desire to simply cause property damage and death, or a last ditch attempt to bring the nations eyes to a problem that he saw with this country that he couldn't seem to get anyone to see before? Granted he seems to have strayed from reality long before, but he is correct that something in our system is broken and no one cares to see it. While he has used an abhorred method in his attempt to bring this fact to light, one must stop to ask if this is more of a result of banging his head against the wall of bureaucracy.
I'd say this is a result of insanity, paranoia and delusions of grandeur.
JMO, It sounds as if he has been a contract worker all these years and wasn't paying attention to his taxes, himself or his accountant, hasn't paid or underpaid his taxes, and has been audited at least twice and fined for his neglect. (Just curious as to how a piano is justified as a business expense, was his new wife a piano teacher?)
Also just curious as to how long it will take for some talking head (Glenn Beck) to try and make a martyr out of this guy.
Sounds like he and his friends decided to see how far they could bend the rules and he got caught, and decided to go out in a blaze of glory. I feel more sadness for the people in the building than I do him.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on February 18, 2010, 01:25:12 PM
I'd say this is a result of insanity, paranoia and delusions of grandeur.
oh, that is so there as well, and I think this guy embarked on a crusade that had it's basis on misconceptions. Once the first misconception was drawn, then to continue his crusade he had to follow that path, which could never be completely grounded in reality after this point. My point is, however, that the amount of bureaucracy involved in the system makes trying to right a wrong (perceived or real) can be maddening.
Boatload of undcoumented income......
"So now we come to the present. After my experience with the CPA world, following the business crash I swore that I'd never enter another accountant's office again. But here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income, not to mention an expensive new business asset, a piano, which I had no idea how to handle. After considerable thought I decided that it would be irresponsible NOT to get professional help; a very big mistake.
When we received the forms back I was very optimistic that they were in order. I had taken all of the years information to Bill Ross, and he came back with results very similar to what I was expecting. Except that he had neglected to include the contents of Sheryl's unreported income; $12,700 worth of it. To make matters worse, Ross knew all along this was missing and I didn't have a clue until he pointed it out in the middle of the audit. By that time it had become brutally evident that he was representing himself and not me.
This left me stuck in the middle of this disaster trying to defend transactions that have no relationship to anything tax-related (at least the tax-related transactions were poorly documented). Things I never knew anything about and things my wife had no clue would ever matter to anyone. The end result is... well, just look around."
Seriuosly, sounds like he got caught again. Looks like his fault and his CPA.
Unreal. He's already being glorified with a fan page on Facebook:
The Joe "Take My Pound Of Flesh" Stack Anti-IRS Fan Page
Cut and paste into your "search" on FB when you are logged in. No, I won't become a fan of this page.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 18, 2010, 01:47:49 PM
Unreal. He's already being glorified with a fan page on Facebook:
The Joe "Take My Pound Of Flesh" Stack Anti-IRS Fan Page
Cut and paste into your "search" on FB when you are logged in. No, I won't become a fan of this page.
I think I'll pass. That is one thing to worry about, if this turns into some kind of radical movement
Quote from: Conan71 on February 18, 2010, 01:06:42 PM
Why the FOTARD headline?
I'm just glad, at least at this point, it looks like no one (except the Dufus) was killed.
Has FOTARD been accounted for?
Oh, wait. . . He likes the IRS.
Crazy man is right in saying that our legal code is depressingly convoluted and voluminous. It's a shame that something as common as buying a house comes with signing documents so impenetrable we just make our mark hoping it turns out well for us like it has most other people.
No doubt we're squeezed by the government here and there. If it gets to the point where most people are squeezed to sufficient discomfort, we get widespread crap like this. I don't think we're anywhere near this point.
Most likely, this guy tried to pull some stuff early in his career that many get away with, but he didn't execute it very well. Subsequent bad decisions and consistently irresponsible financial management delivered him to his "current" predicament.
Some of that rant is actually founded in some kind of rational complaint, but crazy people many times only have one thing that makes them crazy. Otherwise, they're normal.
Slightly off topic, but relevant, the TEA Party is gaining extremists in this article, a Tea Party member is calling for the hangning of a senator....
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/02/18/20100218tea-party-speaker-calls-for-hanging.html (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/02/18/20100218tea-party-speaker-calls-for-hanging.html)
Are we digressing to the Salem Witch Trials, or am I off base with my observations as to what's going on?
Quote from: dbacks fan on February 18, 2010, 09:59:59 PM
Slightly off topic, but relevant, the TEA Party is gaining extremists in this article, a Tea Party member is calling for the hangning of a senator....
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/02/18/20100218tea-party-speaker-calls-for-hanging.html (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/02/18/20100218tea-party-speaker-calls-for-hanging.html)
Are we digressing to the Salem Witch Trials, or am I off base with my observations as to what's going on?
Crazy things are afoot. Hard not to see it.
The weird thing about the Tea Party (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/17/tea.party.poll/) is that it isn't organized around a particular platform. It's a bunch of college educated white guys angry at the status quo. They are generally conservative but other than that there's not much more unifying them. So it's hard to appease them . . . scratch that, it's hard to respond to their demands effectively
because there are no demands. Another question: is this actually terrorism? It's a furious, crazy guy driving his plane into a building. If you read his manifesto you'll find a lot of loose political ranting but nothing that really amounts to more than personal grievances. So, if you suicide-plane yourself into an IRS building and you have nothing particular in mind other than personal vengeance, is it terrorism?
The Tea Party is a novelty... nothing but pure partisanship. I think they have energized a certain frustration most everyone has with the broken system in DC (Hey, I hear VP Biden finally got that this week!) but a deeply partisan agenda isn't going to work. Ultra-conservatives will find they only account for 15 to 20% of the populace who care about politics. Much like ultra liberals. We need to be thinking more about compromises and finding common ground instead of accepting this bullshit from DC that failed partisan agendas are the fault of the other party and a lack of bi-partisanship. I'm going to hammer this point home ad-nauseum until people finally get it: bi-partisanship isn't threats, disrespect, or knuckling to pressure. Speaker Tip O'neill and President Ronald Reagan knew what that meant.
It used to be that political differences were like professional jealousy. Now they are shrill acrimony.
The true fault lies in the idea that 60 to 70% of people don't want what DC is peddling, but the flow of money from SIGS, PACS, and corporations (this could not have been a worse time for the recent corporate electioneering ruling from SCROTUS) is countering what most of us want. I don't like the idea that I need to send millions of $$ to a bunch of skanks in DC to get anything done. That's most definitely something our founding fathers did not envision nor want. They didn't even want anyone to be a professional politician.
Quote from: we vs us on February 18, 2010, 10:27:32 PM
Another question: is this actually terrorism? It's a furious, crazy guy driving his plane into a building. If you read his manifesto you'll find a lot of loose political ranting but nothing that really amounts to more than personal grievances. So, if you suicide-plane yourself into an IRS building and you have nothing particular in mind other than personal vengeance, is it terrorism?
I've had trouble wrapping my mind around this. A certain hyperbolist who no longer posts here perverted the term of "domestic terrorist" in my mind so I've become reluctant to use it. I do differentiate on this case over the killing of Dr. Tiller in that Scott Roeder had a personal vendetta against a particular individual due to that individual's chosen line of work, though it could be argued that Dr. Tiller was a symbol or institution as much as he was an individual. If we can apply that as a standard for domestic terrorism, then every cop killer becomes another domestic terrorist, or every person who kills a cheating spouse could be a terrorist because it strikes fear into other people engaged in adultry as a possible outcome of their actions.
When I saw the first pics of the building, Murrah came to mind. Initially, newscasts were saying this was in the flight path to an airport and nothing nefarious had happened. This guy had the same sort of rage that Tim McVeigh had, enough to strike a building with Federal employees and other unknown occupants who simply did nothing more than show up for work this morning. Fortunately it appears the body count is the inverse this time as far as perpetrator vs. victims.
McVeigh was a furious, crazy guy with personal grievances and a large bomb in the back of a rental truck. I'm not trying to trivialize the point, just simply trying to figure out at what point someone becomes a terrorist, martyr, patriot, or victim of our government. Could be an interesting discussion so long as FOTD and Jamesrage don't show up for it.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 18, 2010, 11:28:21 PM
Initially, newscasts were saying this was in the flight path to an airport and nothing nefarious had happened.
Being the geek that I am when I first saw some of the live feed and still pics and some other info I actually google earthed where the building is and then backed out and found that there is an airport about 13 miles to the SSE of the building, Austin Bergstrom Airport (Formerly Bergstrom AFB) and thought that it was a possibility of a crash after take off. But looking more closely around the crash site it just didn't fit as an accident. I'm not an expert, it just didn't look right.
BOT, I would consider him a looney with a vendeta, much like a disgruntled employee (Patrick Sherrill and others) who snapped and took out their anger on a specific target. Not to say that it isn't terrorism, but I don't think it fits the definition, but then again I think that what people now define as terrorism has changed.
Terrorism as I understand it always has a political component, and at its most simplistic "exists to cause terror." The pilot definitely was rockin' the first, but it's not so clear whether or not he was going for the second. Yes, he said he wanted to inspire the "american zombies" to wake up, but there was no real movement behind him to sustain the political effect of the act itself.
Maybe that's the real dividing line. A truly terrorist act exists as part of a larger strategy to effect change. If it's just a one-off thing, maybe it's just a crazy loner being crazy.
Quote from: we vs us on February 19, 2010, 09:57:03 AM
Terrorism as I understand it always has a political component, and at its most simplistic "exists to cause terror." The pilot definitely was rockin' the first, but it's not so clear whether or not he was going for the second. Yes, he said he wanted to inspire the "american zombies" to wake up, but there was no real movement behind him to sustain the political effect of the act itself.
Maybe that's the real dividing line. A truly terrorist act exists as part of a larger strategy to effect change. If it's just a one-off thing, maybe it's just a crazy loner being crazy.
If sensationalizing the term "terrorism" will sell more ads on CNN, MSNBC, FOX, and the rest of the alphabet, you can bet this will be considered terrorism by the media.
Quote from: we vs us on February 19, 2010, 09:57:03 AM
Terrorism as I understand it always has a political component, and at its most simplistic "exists to cause terror." The pilot definitely was rockin' the first, but it's not so clear whether or not he was going for the second. Yes, he said he wanted to inspire the "american zombies" to wake up, but there was no real movement behind him to sustain the political effect of the act itself.
Maybe that's the real dividing line. A truly terrorist act exists as part of a larger strategy to effect change. If it's just a one-off thing, maybe it's just a crazy loner being crazy.
It's an interesting discussion. I see little difference, other than scale, between him and the jackasses who flew jetliners into buildings in Washington and NYC. Like bin Laden, he had some sort of big beef with the U.S. government, and wanted to inflict as much damage as possible in a kamikaze effort.
Maybe it's time to simply retire the now almost-meaningless "terrorism" tag and call these guys what they really are -- cold-blooded murderers.
From Encyclopidia Britanic "Terrorism - the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police."
And from Webster's Dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorist (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorist)
Mainly they state that terrorists and terrorism is funded by an orginazation to inflict fear and panic on a certain segment of a population (Catholic v Protestant in Northern Ireland, IRA v British Gov't)
By strict definition, I would have to say no, since no group or orginazation has stepped forward to claim responsibility, but I think that the rules have changed. McNut and the Murrah bombing, which was a funded attack against a government building by a radical faction in the US in response to Koresh and Waco, was a terrorist act.
I'm simply curious what kind of draconian measures this assclown has now left general aviation and commercial building management with. There will be some sort of far-reaching over-reaction to this which will limit others liberties you can bet on it.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 19, 2010, 10:45:05 AM
I'm simply curious what kind of draconian measures this assclown has now left general aviation and commercial building management with. There will be some sort of far-reaching over-reaction to this which will limit others liberties you can bet on it.
+1
And if I was in Tulsa I'd buy you a Marshall's for hitting the nail on the head.
Probably start doing profiles and background checks on anyone with a civilian pilots license to see if they have any issues or grievences with Uncle Sam.
If you really must compare the two incidents, the 9/11 hijackers were previously radicalized zealots offered a chance to die for a "higher cause" by attacking innocent people at symbolic targets.
The Austin pilot, on the other hand, was someone who's world suddenly fell apart at the hands of the IRS and he targeted them specifically.
In that perspective, it's not terrorism but revenge.
It wouldnt surprise me though if the IRS wasnt fueling much of the "terrorism" rhetoric themselves.
Quote from: dbacks fan on February 19, 2010, 10:51:08 AM
+1
And if I was in Tulsa I'd buy you a Marshall's for hitting the nail on the head.
Probably start doing profiles and background checks on anyone with a civilian pilots license to see if they have any issues or grievences with Uncle Sam.
Marshall's Law!!!
Quote from: patric on February 19, 2010, 11:04:43 AM
If you really must compare the two incidents, the 9/11 hijackers were previously radicalized zealots offered a chance to die for a "higher cause" by attacking innocent people at symbolic targets.
The Austin pilot, on the other hand, was someone who's world suddenly fell apart at the hands of the IRS and he targeted them specifically.
In that perspective, it's not terrorism but revenge.
It wouldnt surprise me though if the IRS wasnt fueling much of the "terrorism" rhetoric themselves.
What would they gain by calling it terrorism?
Quote from: dbacks fan on February 19, 2010, 11:27:19 AM
What would they gain by calling it terrorism?
Funding, perhaps?
Broader powers, perhaps?
Antigovernment Republican rhetoric has given tacit approval for the kind of incident you are discussing. The Republican Party has swung much further to the right than the Democratic Party has ever swung to the left. You Republicans are laying the groundwork for fascism.
So if the IRS goes after you, you are justified in attacking the U.S. Government? You guys really are a bunch of crooks that can't stand any kind of oversight.
God save us from the Republicans.
Quote from: Hometown on February 19, 2010, 12:10:18 PM
Antigovernment Republican rhetoric has given tacit approval for the kind of incident you are discussing. The Republican Party has swung much further to the right than the Democratic Party has ever swung to the left. You Republicans are laying the groundwork for fascism.
So if the IRS goes after you, you are justified in attacking the U.S. Government? You guys really are a bunch of crooks that can't stand any kind of oversight.
God save us from the Republicans.
Barf!
Quote from: Hometown on February 19, 2010, 12:10:18 PM
Antigovernment Republican rhetoric has given tacit approval for the kind of incident you are discussing. The Republican Party has swung much further to the right than the Democratic Party has ever swung to the left. You Republicans are laying the groundwork for fascism.
So if the IRS goes after you, you are justified in attacking the U.S. Government? You guys really are a bunch of crooks that can't stand any kind of oversight.
God save us from the Republicans.
Hometown, You're right.
A great example of exactly what is wrong.
God save us from the Republicans and the Democrats. They have become two opposing teams that latch onto whatever view is contrarian to their counterpart. Neither is capable of the dialogue necessary to serve the people. Both wholly concerned with poisoning the other.
When we talk of political differences our discussions should be focused on the application of FORCE. Government is FORCE, and nothing more. Conservatives believe in the conservative application of force to protect people from harm. Liberals believe in the liberal application of force to the same ends. The constitution provides the limits.
The two parties, Republican & Democrat, have rendered themselves useless now, two soccer teams battling for the ball, so concerned with the glory of victory that they don't realize the stands are emptying.
Quote from: Hometown on February 19, 2010, 12:10:18 PM
Antigovernment Republican rhetoric has given tacit approval for the kind of incident you are discussing. The Republican Party has swung much further to the right than the Democratic Party has ever swung to the left. You Republicans are laying the groundwork for fascism.
So if the IRS goes after you, you are justified in attacking the U.S. Government? You guys really are a bunch of crooks that can’t stand any kind of oversight.
God save us from the Republicans.
How on earth you cobbled that bunch of gobbeldy gook together out of this incident is a total mysterty to me. According to his manifesto, he hated GWB with a passion.
Show me some proof this nutjob was a Republican and how it's remotely relevant to his psychosis that led to this.
He was also not a fan of big business and Democrats...
"Return to the early '80s, and here I was off to a terrifying start as a 'wet-behind-the-ears' contract software engineer... and two years later, thanks to the fine backroom, midnight effort by the sleazy executives of Arthur Andersen (the very same folks who later brought us Enron and other such calamities) and an equally sleazy New York Senator (Patrick Moynihan), we saw the passage of 1986 tax reform act with its section 1706."
Also his comment
"Instead I got busy working 100-hour workweeks. Then came the L.A. depression of the early 1990s. Our leaders decided that they didn't need the all of those extra Air Force bases they had in Southern California, so they were closed; just like that. The result was economic devastation in the region that rivaled the widely publicized Texas S&L fiasco."
shows that he didn't care for the government at all because the the whole base closure act covered Regan, Bush I, and Clinton, as well as Dick Cheney, Dick Armey, and everybody else in the House and Senate from '88 to '99. We had a global recession in the early 90's.
Although dry, this is an interesting read on the BRAC Act
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/97-305.pdf (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/97-305.pdf)
Quote from: Conan71 on February 19, 2010, 10:45:05 AM
I'm simply curious what kind of draconian measures this assclown has now left general aviation and commercial building management with. There will be some sort of far-reaching over-reaction to this which will limit others liberties you can bet on it.
Yes, despite the incident providing yet more proof that light planes can't do much damage to buildings constructed better than your average tract house, I fully expect to see some sort of asinine regulations on GA. Probably related to passengers, even though passengers had nothing to do with this. It's the default reaction these days.
And yes, everyone, the term "terrorism" is utterly useless.
I think about the only political leaning we can take from this is he was anti-government.
Quote from: nathanm on February 19, 2010, 01:43:16 PM
Yes, despite the incident providing yet more proof that light planes can't do much damage to buildings constructed better than your average tract house, I fully expect to see some sort of asinine regulations on GA. Probably related to passengers, even though passengers had nothing to do with this. It's the default reaction these days.
And yes, everyone, the term "terrorism" is utterly useless.
Five day waiting period after filing a flight plan so that there is a cool down period if needed. ;)
Quote from: dbacks fan on February 19, 2010, 01:44:56 PM
Five day waiting period after filing a flight plan so that there is a cool down period if needed. ;)
I think that should be filed under "airline bailout," not "security." :o
Quote from: Conan71 on February 19, 2010, 01:43:39 PM
I think about the only political leaning we can take from this is he was anti-government.
Agreed!
Quote from: nathanm on February 19, 2010, 01:43:16 PM
Yes, despite the incident providing yet more proof that light planes can't do much damage to buildings constructed better than your average tract house, I fully expect to see some sort of asinine regulations on GA. Probably related to passengers, even though passengers had nothing to do with this. It's the default reaction these days.
And yes, everyone, the term "terrorism" is utterly useless.
Ain't no way all this guy had in his plane was 40 gallons of 100LL. He had to have had something else in that plane. You just don't get that burn rate out of 40 gallons of AvGas.
Especially in a four seat Piper Cherokee. It's not much bigger than a Dodge Ram actually.
Size-wise, it is a little bigger, but only weighs a bit less than 2200 lbs with full tanks and pilot. And depending on the model, it can carry between 50 and 84 gallons of fuel. The Dodge Ram is about a 4000+ pound vehicle.
Quote from: BLKHWK on February 19, 2010, 10:56:12 PM
Size-wise, it is a little bigger, but only weighs a bit less than 2200 lbs with full tanks and pilot. And depending on the model, it can carry between 50 and 84 gallons of fuel. The Dodge Ram is about a 4000+ pound vehicle.
I know..I am/was a pilot that started his training in a PA-28. I'm talking about how much space it occupies. And the model I trained in carried about 54 gallons. So if you figure 3 gallons preflight/taxi, 3 gallons climbout/cruise..you get the picture. Even at 84 gallons that's not enough to create the kind of fire I saw on the footage. Unless there was some kind of accelerant involved either in the plane or at the point of impact.
Quote from: Hoss on February 20, 2010, 08:19:12 AM
I know..I am/was a pilot that started his training in a PA-28. I'm talking about how much space it occupies. And the model I trained in carried about 54 gallons. So if you figure 3 gallons preflight/taxi, 3 gallons climbout/cruise..you get the picture. Even at 84 gallons that's not enough to create the kind of fire I saw on the footage. Unless there was some kind of accelerant involved either in the plane or at the point of impact.
Paper burns really well, even in the absence of any accelerant. Douse a little avgas on the carpet, desks, and things, while physically breaking open filing cabinets and scattering flammables about and you'll get a pretty good sized fire. Nothing that will take down an entire building, mind you, but a surprisingly large fire nonetheless.
Recent reports are that he ripped out the seats of the plane and stole a drum of avgas to put on board. So, yes it was more than a simple act of rage. I wonder what folks at the airfield thought he was doing? Is it really that lax at these small airfields?
Anyway, I am in a minority as usual. I understood his rant. I do understand how someone can do such crazy smile, while all his friends and coworkers seemed to think he was just a fine, calm, friendly individual. The pressure from authority and the irrational, illogical nature of what it takes to be "successful" can be overpowering to a personality unsuited for it. However, I don't really think he was insane. He was narcissistic, naive, ethically challenged and unwilling to face realities. No different than the guys who live by the principle of "If I can't have her, no one can have her" and end up killing loved ones. I meet lots of people with similar characteristics each day and I wonder...if they may come charging through our door one day with incendiaries.
Truth is he was unwilling to adapt to what the business and political world really is about, even though he was likely guilty of the same sins he complained about. Just my thoughts.
Quote from: waterboy on February 20, 2010, 11:46:48 AM
Recent reports are that he ripped out the seats of the plane and stole a drum of avgas to put on board. So, yes it was more than a simple act of rage. I wonder what folks at the airfield thought he was doing? Is it really that lax at these small airfields?
It's not uncommon for folks to rig up an auxiliary fuel tank for long flights. Stealing the avgas would obviously not be normal. ;)
Yeah, he was insane. Sane people don't fly planes into occupied buildings on purpose and sane people don't kill estranged spouses or S/O's so someone else can't have them.
Quote from: nathanm on February 20, 2010, 09:37:46 AM
Paper burns really well, even in the absence of any accelerant. Douse a little avgas on the carpet, desks, and things, while physically breaking open filing cabinets and scattering flammables about and you'll get a pretty good sized fire. Nothing that will take down an entire building, mind you, but a surprisingly large fire nonetheless.
But paper doesn't burn so black like that. That's hydrocarbon burning there. Unless all the paper was full of black ink.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 20, 2010, 01:57:37 PM
Yeah, he was insane. Sane people don't fly planes into occupied buildings on purpose and sane people don't kill estranged spouses or S/O's so someone else can't have them.
So, had he lived, you would not be able to prosecute him for the crime. Sanity exists on a lot of levels. Disturbed? Maladjusted? Yes. Insane?
Strawberry Alarm Clock?....."a yardstick for lunatics, one point of view"
Quote from: waterboy on February 20, 2010, 02:48:51 PM
So, had he lived, you would not be able to prosecute him for the crime. Sanity exists on a lot of levels. Disturbed? Maladjusted? Yes. Insane?
Strawberry Alarm Clock?....."a yardstick for lunatics, one point of view"
Not true. He could have been prosecuted. His attorney could have pulled an insanity defense and had he been successful, this creep would have gone to a maximum security Ho-Ho Hotel.
I'm just not quite certain how you arrived at a conclusion such an act isn't insanity.
You would have a hard time getting a 400+ pound drum of avgas up onto the wing, and then through the door. Not just due to the weight, but the size of the drum itself. Definitely not a one-man job.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 20, 2010, 03:02:56 PM
Not true. He could have been prosecuted. His attorney could have pulled an insanity defense and had he been successful, this creep would have gone to a maximum security Ho-Ho Hotel.
I'm just not quite certain how you arrived at a conclusion such an act isn't insanity.
Insane people don't have many friends, if any. Those who know them are rarely surprised that they would end up badly. They are so divorced from reality that everyday activities like bathing and conversing are difficult or impossible. They smell, they ramble, they exhibit inappropriate behaviors that have no meaning to anyone but themselves. The act of flying a plane into a building may be considered insanity to us, because it accomplished nothing of any value but that is an assessment from a different level of sanity. Had he crashed it into the headquarters of a building housing Osama Bin Laden, he's suddenly a sober hero. Or he may have had a temporary insanity though I doubt it. The reality is that it was a suicidal solution for his personal problems. One coupled with revenge. A bad one. A permanent solution for temporary problems that he could not cope with. People who commit suicide are not necessarily insane. He was in need of counseling, therapy, hospitalization or at the very least competent legal and tax representation.
That's what I meant Conan. People in need of help slip into a different reality where people no longer are viewed as living, breathing sentient beings. Other lives have little value for them. They are merely impediments or acquisitions. Reality is a sliding scale for them. Perhaps others with more clinical definitions could correct or amend my remarks.
Potato, poh-tah-toh...
Quote from: waterboy on February 20, 2010, 02:48:51 PM
Strawberry Alarm Clock?....."a yardstick for lunatics, one point of view"
That goes back a few years.
Quote from: BLKHWK on February 20, 2010, 03:10:19 PM
You would have a hard time getting a 400+ pound drum of avgas up onto the wing, and then through the door. Not just due to the weight, but the size of the drum itself. Definitely not a one-man job.
I hope I'm not giving instructions here but...
Put the drum in the plane empty, then fill it up.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 20, 2010, 05:19:51 PM
I hope I'm not giving instructions here but...
Put the drum in the plane empty, then fill it up.
That likely wouldn't draw as much attention, especially from a distance since the tanks on a Cherokee are in-wing.
Not that it really matters but do we know if it was a Cherokee 140, 180, or a six?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 21, 2010, 11:11:20 AM
Not that it really matters but do we know if it was a Cherokee 140, 180, or a six?
Reports say it was a Piper PA28 (Cherokee, single engine piston, four seats). I trained for several months in one until switching to a Cessna 172 before it became cost-prohibitive for me to continue on.
Edit: misread it Colin...it was evidently a Dakota (236), which was a forerunner to the Cherokee 6. Had a 235 HP Lycoming engine and according to my sources had a max fuel capacity of 72g.
Quote from: Hoss on February 20, 2010, 07:35:00 PM
That likely wouldn't draw as much attention, especially from a distance since the tanks on a Cherokee are in-wing.
Why would it draw attention at all? While it's not exactly normal, it's not abnormal either to put an extended range tank in most light planes.
I know I've seen them in the entry-level Cessnas, anyway.
Cessna 150s/152s had a factory option of long range tanks in the wings, just bigger tanks in the same place. About 38 gal vs 26 total fuel (including unusable).
To be legal, you can't just put an extra tank in the plane. The FAA wants to know about fuel system modifications. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I don't imagine someone smuggling drugs is going to worry about the plane being up to date on the paperwork. They will have bigger things to worry about if they get ramp checked. Really long range mods, like to fly to Hawaii, require a lot of mods. In flight engine oil replenishment can be an issue.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 21, 2010, 03:37:45 PM
Cessna 150s/152s had a factory option of long range tanks in the wings, just bigger tanks in the same place. About 38 gal vs 26 total fuel (including unusable).
I could have sworn I've seen approved temporary auxiliary fuel tanks that sit in the back of the cabin. Maybe I'm thinking of a different plane.
Quote from: nathanm on February 21, 2010, 05:40:28 PM
I could have sworn I've seen approved temporary auxiliary fuel tanks that sit in the back of the cabin. Maybe I'm thinking of a different plane.
You could get a fuel bladder for extra capacity.......
It's entirely possible there are additional aftermarket approved additional fuel tanks.
Approved generally means you don't have to get FAA engineering approval for your particular plane. The installation still has to paperwork filed. It's not as easy as throwing an overnight bag in the back of the plane, legally. This all is for Type Certificated planes like the Piper Cherokee, Cessna 150 etc. Experimental planes (homebuilt usually) have different rules but you still can't do anything you want without some kind of paperwork.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 21, 2010, 06:15:38 PM
It's entirely possible there are additional aftermarket approved additional fuel tanks.
Approved generally means you don't have to get FAA engineering approval for your particular plane.
My point is simply that people do use the things, thus seeing someone put some fuel in an auxiliary tank wouldn't be all that unusual, unless you were both nearby and paying close enough attention to see that they were putting it in a drum or something else that obviously wasn't an approved auxiliary tank.
Putting fuel in an existing aux tank wouldn't gather any attention. Trying to put a large drum in the plane would probably attract attention if the plane were in sight, not in an enclosed hangar. There is too much we don't know to determine if he should have been seen.
What we really need are force fields around government offices. ;) Any one working on that?
Seriously, I am surprised that this guy didn't attract much attention, but then again if he were determined enough, he would have found a way around any security. After 911, I stumbled into one of the local refineries looking for a jump start for a dead battery on my boat. They were quite concerned since they had worked hard to protect their perimeter with fencing and trained guards. They left a gate open.
Quote from: waterboy on February 21, 2010, 06:52:39 PM
What we really need are force fields around government offices. ;) Any one working on that?
Seriously, I am surprised that this guy didn't attract much attention, but then again if he were determined enough, he would have found a way around any security. After 911, I stumbled into one of the local refineries looking for a jump start for a dead battery on my boat. They were quite concerned since they had worked hard to protect their perimeter with fencing and trained guards. They left a gate open.
It depends. It all lies on the fact of several questions:
Did he have a private hangar?
If so, was it enclosed enough for him to be discrete about any nefarious activity?
Anyone who owns just a Piper likely won't be splurging on a private, enclosed hangar. But, I'm sure investigators are looking into the matter currently.
Quote from: Hoss on February 21, 2010, 07:31:14 PM
Anyone who owns just a Piper likely won't be splurging on a private, enclosed hangar.
Think Tee hangars like at Riverside/Jones (by Jenks). Some are privately owned on land leased from the airport authority like the northwest tees and the east tees. Some are just rented space like the rows on the west side south of the cross (13-31) runway. There are a lot of just a Piper/Cessna/Mooney/Beech in those areas. There are some fancy ones too. Many/most of the rented tees are partitioned internally although the partitions may not go to the roof.
I'll agree though that I don't see a Cherokee as the sole inhabitant of a $250,000+ hangar.
I don't know what the storage space rental was like where ever he was based.
Here's a link to an international GA ferrying firm. I'd read an article in Plane & Pilot or one of my aviation mags about 10 years ago about ferrying flights. For a Piper PA-28 type, according to this web site, they use a 100 gallon ferry tank.
http://www.internationalferryflights.com/
While not overly common, no one would think twice about someone installing a ferry tank or filling one in a GA craft probably other than to ask where the long trip is planned.
To do it by FAA requirements I think this is done as part of a ferrying certificate which has different requirements than a permanent STC modification, as I recall.
If a lone nut bag is intent on modifying his aircraft in his own privacy, there's nothing to stop it, just as there's nothing to keep people from building fertilizer bombs in rental trucks or the back seat of their cars. An airplane really represents little more hazard than a ground vehicle other than you can't fly a truck into the 30th floor of an office building.
While this isn't a plane crashing, it does give some idea as to what happens when a fuel tank is violently ruptured and the fuel spray is ignited. move forward to approximately 3:22 minutes in to see the segment.
Quote from: dbacks fan on February 22, 2010, 10:55:57 AM
While this isn't a plane crashing, it does give some idea as to what happens when a fuel tank is violently ruptured and the fuel spray is ignited. move forward to approximately 3:22 minutes in to see the segment.
Now the question becomes was there the right conditions, including an ignition source away from the engine of the airplane, to induce THAT kind of fire?
Color me a skeptic. Had to be more accelerant, is my thinking.
Quote from: Hoss on February 22, 2010, 12:13:29 PM
Now the question becomes was there the right conditions, including an ignition source away from the engine of the airplane, to induce THAT kind of fire?
Color me a skeptic. Had to be more accelerant, is my thinking.
"Pull the building"
JK
Post crash fires are very common in GA accidents even when they hit dirt. Think about how many news reports you've seen mentioning post crash fires. Assuming it was a 180 with a standard cruise prop, it was probably going 110 kts when he hit, the fire is pretty appropriate hitting a steel, glass, and probably some sort of rock object.
I used to watch Mythbusters quite a bit, but some of their methodology in re-creating certain conditions is suspect.
Chandler Park, Sept. 2009
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=11081324
Glenpool, Oct. 2007
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071018_1_A1_spanc56181
Belleville, Illinois last night
http://mystateline.com/content/fulltext/?cid=139531
"Fuel is rated according to its level of octane. High amounts of octane allow a powerful piston engine to burn its fuel efficiently, a quality called "anti-knock" because the engine does not misfire, or "knock." At that time, high-octane aviation gas was only a small percentage of the overall petroleum refined in the United States. Most gas had no more than an 87 octane rating. Doolittle pushed hard for the development of 100-octane fuel (commonly called Aviation Gasoline or AvGas) and convinced Shell to begin manufacturing it, to stockpile the chemicals necessary to make more, and to modify its refineries to make mass production of high-octane fuel possible.
A major problem with gasoline is that it has what is known as a low "flashpoint." This is the temperature at which it produces fumes that can be ignited by an open flame. Gasoline has a flashpoint of around 30 degrees Fahrenheit (-1 degree Celsius). Volatility is a measure of a fuel's ability to evaporate under varying conditions.
The temperature range at which fuel vapor concentrations can be explosive (at ground level in an equilibrium state) are approximately:
1. Avgas 10 to 40 degrees Celsius;
2. Kerosene's (Avtur, Jet A-1) +38 to +80 degrees Celsius.
3. Wide-cut fuels (JP-4) 20 to +10 degrees Celsius.
Volatility is a measure of a fuel's ability to evaporate under varying conditions."
From http://www.risingup.com/forums/student-pilot/488-avgas-flashpoint.html (http://www.risingup.com/forums/student-pilot/488-avgas-flashpoint.html)
So with a flashpoint of 50 to 104 degrees fahrenheit and a spray of 40 + gallons on to the materials found in a office, it would be like a flame thrower.
The black smoke, hydrocarbon fuel as some one refered to it, look around your home or office and see how much is plastic, acrylic, vinyl, rubber.
Quote from: dbacks fan on February 22, 2010, 01:09:21 PM
The black smoke, hydrocarbon fuel as some one refered to it, look around your home or office and see how much is plastic, acrylic, vinyl, rubber.
I still say not enough for that amount of smoke from such a small aircraft which couldn't paint its footprint that large. I still say there was extra involved. It looked to me like that entire floor was involved in the fire.
Quote from: Hoss on February 22, 2010, 03:55:54 PM
I still say not enough for that amount of smoke from such a small aircraft which couldn't paint its footprint that large. I still say there was extra involved. It looked to me like that entire floor was involved in the fire.
As it quickly would as the paper and other small flammable objects that were strewn about from the physical force of the impact caught fire and spread it hither and yon. Additionally, any excess fuel would likely have been largely aerosolized, causing the initial spread of the fire to be quite rapid and wide.
Quote from: nathanm on February 22, 2010, 04:04:06 PM
As it quickly would as the paper and other small flammable objects that were strewn about from the physical force of the impact caught fire and spread it hither and yon. Additionally, any excess fuel would likely have been largely aerosolized, causing the initial spread of the fire to be quite rapid and wide.
Some of you guys sound like you're trying to convince me. I'm not. I still say not enough footprint and not enough fuel. The force on the wings would have to be specific in order to do what you're stating. typically these fuel cells rupture in a way that would avoid this.
Quote from: Hoss on February 22, 2010, 04:09:45 PM
Some of you guys sound like you're trying to convince me. I'm not. I still say not enough footprint and not enough fuel. The force on the wings would have to be specific in order to do what you're stating. typically these fuel cells rupture in a way that would avoid this.
Typically those fuel cells don't slam into steel columns at 150mph.
Quote from: Hoss on February 22, 2010, 04:09:45 PM
Some of you guys sound like you're trying to convince me. I'm not. I still say not enough footprint and not enough fuel. The force on the wings would have to be specific in order to do what you're stating. typically these fuel cells rupture in a way that would avoid this.
Did someone see George Bush flee the building just before the explosion?
Quote from: Hoss on February 22, 2010, 03:55:54 PM
I still say not enough for that amount of smoke from such a small aircraft which couldn't paint its footprint that large. I still say there was extra involved. It looked to me like that entire floor was involved in the fire.
I'm not saying he wasn't carrying more in the cabin space, thats why I said 40 + gallons.
Quote from: Hoss on February 22, 2010, 04:09:45 PM
Some of you guys sound like you're trying to convince me. I'm not. I still say not enough footprint and not enough fuel. The force on the wings would have to be specific in order to do what you're stating. typically these fuel cells rupture in a way that would avoid this.
Someone may be able to correct me, but I think there still a number of wet-wing aircraft around out there. Read through the NTSB reports and see how many aircraft explode upon impact. In this case, add to it fuel being atomized into an open space instead of scattered across the ground or mountain face plus all the flammibles used in building construction and it's quite possible. That's why fire codes require sprinklers in buildings built with fire-proof materials like steel and concrete, it's the contents that burn not the building, per se.
I found this http://flightopedia.com/piper-pa-24-comanche.htm (http://flightopedia.com/piper-pa-24-comanche.htm) about the Piper Comanche that similar to the Cherokee, including the fact that the plane could be modified to hold 120 gallons, and the story of a man that flew a modified Comanche from Casa Blanca in Africa to Los Angeles non stop. So it's possible that the plane may have been modified at one time to carry more fuel.
Quote from: dbacks fan on February 22, 2010, 04:43:28 PM
I found this http://flightopedia.com/piper-pa-24-comanche.htm (http://flightopedia.com/piper-pa-24-comanche.htm) about the Piper Comanche that similar to the Cherokee, including the fact that the plane could be modified to hold 120 gallons, and the story of a man that flew a modified Comanche from Casa Blanca in Africa to Los Angeles non stop. So it's possible that the plane may have been modified at one time to carry more fuel.
120 gallons in a Comanche can all be in/on the wings. 30 gal main, 15 gal aux in the wing each side plus 15 gal each tip tanks. Comanches have fuel bladders. I believe the Cherokees are a metal tank with nothing special inside like a race car.
Quote from: dbacks fan on February 22, 2010, 04:43:28 PM
I found this http://flightopedia.com/piper-pa-24-comanche.htm (http://flightopedia.com/piper-pa-24-comanche.htm) about the Piper Comanche that similar to the Cherokee, including the fact that the plane could be modified to hold 120 gallons, and the story of a man that flew a modified Comanche from Casa Blanca in Africa to Los Angeles non stop. So it's possible that the plane may have been modified at one time to carry more fuel.
Interesting you brought this up on this thread. This is the particular aircraft I believe you are talking about from a link I posted to a page about the air museum in Liberal, Kansas. Max Conrad was the pilot. The "L" shaped aluminum object between the placard podium and the left wing was the pilot's seat. Yes, that was an additional fuel tank. IIRC, all the seats were removed and replaced with fuel tanks. My flying partner and I refered to this Comanche as a flying gas tank.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 22, 2010, 08:21:20 PM
Interesting you brought this up on this thread. This is the particular aircraft I believe you are talking about from a link I posted to a page about the air museum in Liberal, Kansas. Max Conrad was the pilot. The "L" shaped aluminum object between the placard podium and the left wing was the pilot's seat. Yes, that was an additional fuel tank. IIRC, all the seats were removed and replaced with fuel tanks. My flying partner and I refered to this Comanche as a flying gas tank.
Yes, that is the one I was refering to. I spent some time working at Pryor Machine Tool which specialise in aviaton machining, and my father was a mechanical engineer at the old McDonnel/Douglas plant in Tulsa from 1956 until 1987. There are so many things that can be built into an aircraft over it's life span. The Comanche that flew from Africa to Los Angeles took off with a payload 2,000 lbs over it's take off rating, so it is possible that this nut had extra fuel in the cabin, and underwing aircraft have extensive rib and spar reinforcement that he could have been carrying two 55 gallon drums of avgas as a further ammunition per se. The added weight would only be about 900 lbs. So it is concieveable that his flight was premeditated, which would to me rule out an act of desperation, and create the fire that so many are refering to.
Quote from: dbacks fan on February 22, 2010, 08:51:38 PM
Yes, that is the one I was refering to. I spent some time working at Pryor Machine Tool which specialise in aviaton machining, and my father was a mechanical engineer at the old McDonnel/Douglas plant in Tulsa from 1956 until 1987. There are so many things that can be built into an aircraft over it's life span. The Comanche that flew from Africa to Los Angeles took off with a payload 2,000 lbs over it's take off rating, so it is possible that this nut had extra fuel in the cabin, and underwing aircraft have extensive rib and spar reinforcement that he could have been carrying two 55 gallon drums of avgas as a further ammunition per se. The added weight would only be about 900 lbs. So it is concieveable that his flight was premeditated, which would to me rule out an act of desperation.
I seriously doubt he went to any more trouble than topping off the tanks, but that may all come out after the investigation, I'm sure they are looking into it. I think we would have seen a lot more deaths in the building if there was more fuel on the plane.
I'm done beating the horse for now.
(http://me.abelcheung.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/beating_dead_horse.gif)
Quote from: dbacks fan on February 22, 2010, 08:51:38 PM
..underwing aircraft have extensive rib and spar reinforcement
Have you seen the spar as it goes through the Comanche fuselage? It's huge.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 22, 2010, 09:54:47 PM
Have you seen the spar as it goes through the Comanche fuselage? It's huge.
I will have to take a picture of a portion of the spar from a DC3 or DC4 that my grandfather had made into an ashtray when he worked for Douglas in the 30's.
And yes I agree this is a dead horse until the investigation is concluded.