Bomb Threats Via Twitter Partly Shut Down Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport 110
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that "Credible" bomb threats were made Saturday against two flights bound for Atlanta, an airport spokesman said. The flights landed safely after being escorted into Atlanta by military fighter jets. Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport spokesman Reese McCrainie told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution at 3 p.m. that both flights — Delta 1156 and Southwest 2492 — had landed and were sitting on a taxiway waiting to be swept by the Atlanta police Bomb Squad. ... Witnesses reported seeing multiple emergency vehicles on the tarmac, and the Federal Aviation Administration said just before 3 p.m. that departing flights were experiencing gate holds and delays of up to 30 minutes due to a bomb threat.
USA Today says that the flights were on their way to Atlanta from, respectively, Portland, Oregon and Milwaukee, and adds that "NORAD Media Relations Specialist Preston Schlachter confirmed that two F-16 jets launched from McIntire Air Force Base in South Carolina as a precautionary measure."
Re:Credible? (Score:5, Funny)
If there's even a 0.0000000001% chance that something is a credible threat, you can't take any chances. That's why you never see anyone get in a car; it's too dangerous.
Re: (Score:3)
Someone saying something on the Internet is now somehow "credible?"
It worked, didn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
What does the medium of the threat have to do with its credibility?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Update; No Bombs Found on Plane (Score:4, Funny)
So he made bomb threats and swatted someone? Fucktard trifecta is in play.
Ethics in Travel Reviews (Score:1)
#TravelGate
Prudient action (Score:2, Insightful)
But this kind of thing could have us chasing our tails.
Re: Prudient action (Score:3)
It's a good thing Americans don't have tails or they'd usually be seen with them tucked between their legs, anytime air security is involved.
we don't do credible here (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. If you make threats on Slashdot you get picked up by men in white coats instead of black helicopters.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah. If you post on Slashdot you get picked up by men in white coats instead of black helicopters.
FTFY
Other than the obligatory security theatre... (Score:3, Insightful)
... just what would the fighter escort hope to accomplish? Are we really ready to order fighter pilots to shoot down airliners over a phoned-in threat? I guess all it'll take now to spook passengers and completely disrupt air travel in the U.S. is a few bozos with bunch of pre-paid or stolen cellphones.
Re: (Score:3)
... just what would the fighter escort hope to accomplish?
About the only thing I can think of would be to escort the plane along it's new route.
I assume that the plane was rerouted on a pretty much direct route from where they were to Atlanta. They'd want to make sure that the airplane stayed over relatively unpopulated areas in the event of an explosion.
Re: (Score:2)
And if it strays off its assigned route? Do you really think they are going to shoot it down?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember 9/11? You damn well better believe the fighters would shoot the plane down if it strayed.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember 9/11? You damn well better believe the fighters would shoot the plane down if it strayed.
Are you subscribing to the conspiracy theory that the 4th plane was shot down?
And the authorities cannot distinguish between a bomb-threat and a hijacking?
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's referencing the idea that authorities would rather shoot the plane down than let it crash into something important.
Re: (Score:2)
Which rises a question of whether it's possible to prepare specifically for this sort of thing. For example, could one have a missile/chaff specifically designed to choke a jet non-explosively and use towing cables to drag the plane somewhere it could be allowed to glide down? That would give the passengers maximum chances of survival while protecting ground population.
New threats cal
Re: (Score:2)
For example, could one have a missile/chaff specifically designed to choke a jet non-explosively and use towing cables to drag the plane somewhere it could be allowed to glide down?
:-) I think you've been watching way too many Hollywood movies.
Re:Other than the obligatory security theatre... (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends on the situation.
F-16: "Flight 17, you are off course. Come to heading 271."
Jet: "Oops. Sorry. A little stressed up here."
On the other hand...
F-16: "Flight 17, you are off course. Come to heading 271."
Jet: "Kiss my ass, yankee imperialist swine! We're blowin' up Tallahassee!"
will probably get you shot down.
Re: (Score:3)
"Kiss my ass, yankee imperialist swine! We're blowin' up Tallahassee!"
will probably get you shot down.
Most Yankees would consider blowing up Tallahassee to be a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
A "Yankee" means anybody from a place north of the Mason-Dixon Line [wikipedia.org] and south of Canada (or sometimes, to ignorant foreigners, it's a slang term for "American").
Re: (Score:2)
More properly, anybody from north of the Mason-Dixon line is a "damnyankee"....
Re: (Score:2)
More generally, if you live in an area that somebody else thinks is "Yankee", there's probably a more restrictive definition in your area.
Re: (Score:2)
A "Yankee" means anybody from a place north of the Mason-Dixon Line [wikipedia.org] and south of Canada (or sometimes, to ignorant foreigners, it's a slang term for "American").
Yes, foreigners use the term "Yank", not "Yankee" as it has born such rhyming slang terms as "sherman" derived from Sherman Tank and "seppo" which is a shortened version of "septic" as derived from septic tank (tank rhymes with yank, in case you didn't get it). Its also rhymes with the word "wank" which seems to be what you're doing here.
I have certainly enjoyed the irony that you've called foreigners ignorant, yet have demonstrated greater ignorance foreigners yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, If the higher ups decide that the plane is going to do a 9/11 style attack the pilots will get the order to shoot it down.
Re: (Score:1)
My first cynical thought was "shoot them down if they blow up". But one bomber claimed to be on board, so they could have reasonably been concerned that the planes would be hijacked and used as missiles.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because we all know that all security precautions are always done 100% correctly, so they are infallible. And of course it's impossible that the pilot or copilot is actually the hijacker.
Re:Other than the obligatory security theatre... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Other than the obligatory security theatre... (Score:4)
The first thing is bogus. Nobody competent enough to hijack a plane for this purpose will be stupid enough to advertise their intention. The existence of fighter planes is not really a secret.
Re:Other than the obligatory security theatre... (Score:5, Insightful)
And to give the appearance of "doing something" in a situation where realistically, nothing can be done. It is very important for governments to always give the appearance to be in control and that they know what they are doing, even when any halfway smart person knows neither is true most of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Trained observers are almost always useful to have around. We pay the government enough to keep that resource available, might as well use it.
Re: (Score:2)
They are worthless in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
And to give the elyappearance of "doing something" in a situation where realistically, nothing can be done. It is very important for governments to always give the appearance to be in control and that they know what they are doing, even when any halfway smart person knows neither is true most of the time.
If the bomb was a time bomb. If it happened to be triggered remotely, why not bring assets into play that might be able to block such signals? Since we don't know the bomb characteristics, or even if these is a bomb, it is a safe move to play. And fighter jets can almost certainly get on station quicker than an AWAC type plame.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? Most clueless posting so far. Electronic warfare cannot pinpoint a signal that is not being sent. Blanket-jamming has a real risk of bringing down a commercial airplane. Fighter jets are not equipped for real electronic warfare. Airplane bodies are made of metal which shields most RF from outside. The list goes on.
Really, you have zero clue what you are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The only things I see is a completely worthless show-of-force and aid in locating the wreckage if the threat is real...
Re: (Score:3)
And if things really go pear shaped...shoot it down.
What else would you put up there to see what is happening?
Re: (Score:2)
If there's any indication that the craft is no longer under pilot control, then yes. Sorry if they might have reacted previously before 9/11, but at this point you'd better scramble and overpower the hijackers or be collateral. The dead people aren't exactly likely to give any testimony to the contrary, so the government's story that it was necessary will largely go unopposed. Except a few family members who "weren't there" and can't make a rational decision, of course.
Yup (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
... just what would the fighter escort hope to accomplish?
Radio frequency jammers may be, in case the bomb is remotely detonated. I actually don't know.
I don't know if fighter jets are equipped with them, but I can tell you that some helicopters have them. That's what the secret services uses to block cell phone frequencies and other types of frequencies when the President is traveling around.
Re: (Score:2)
... just what would the fighter escort hope to accomplish? Are we really ready to order fighter pilots to shoot down airliners over a phoned-in threat? I guess all it'll take now to spook passengers and completely disrupt air travel in the U.S. is a few bozos with bunch of pre-paid or stolen cellphones.
IDK, observation maybe? Or did you want to hope for cellphone videos to explain what happened?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
and restrict an otherwise free society through random small, infrequent acts of highly publicized violence and mayhem.
The terrorists aren't the main ones infringing upon our freedoms; the government is. The government's response to terrorism is often to take away our fundamental liberties and ignore the constitution.
Re: (Score:1)
and restrict an otherwise free society through random small, infrequent acts of highly publicized violence and mayhem.
The terrorists aren't the main ones infringing upon our freedoms; the government is. The government's response to terrorism is often to take away our fundamental liberties and ignore the constitution.
The truth is that the government doesn't even NEED terrorism to engage in war against its own citizens.
If you study the past history of the United States you will come to realize that the time since September 11, 2001 is far from the only era in US history when the US government engaged in "police state" behavior. What we have been getting in the US for the past 14 years is only the latest in a long series of nasty behavior by those who want to hold power in the US.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a losing strategy for the US administration. A population in fear is a great thing from an incompetent government (as they all are): People in fear are not rational anymore and look to somebody "strong" to "protect" them. If they actually where effective against terrorism (impossible), drugs (impossible), etc. they might be facing uncomfortable questions about real problems. This way, they can pretend there is some kind of state of war and everybody needs to support them.
This strategy if "governing"
Re: (Score:2)
Nice paid-for moderation...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Republican? Both right-wing US parties are doing this in collusion against the population. Yes, there are some differences between the two parties, but that is misdirection using secondary issues. On keeping the population in fear, general surveillance, establishing and maintaining a police-state, etc. they are perfectly in agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
the solution to the US terror problem seems simple. stop treating third world countries like they're children. quit overthrowing elected leaders and installing dictators, stop propping up nation states with a history of violence, and start treating the people who live in these regions as more than "hearts and minds" that you have to "win."
But then the terrorists win! Instead we need to be at war with them, and to win* that war we need to get that pesky constitution thingy the hell out of the way!
*winning the war on terror == giving large sums of money to defense contractors, and getting reelected by convincing the populous that they will get blown up if they vote for the other guy.
Re: (Score:1)
That's why I changed my sig. It's also the name of a rock and roll song.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, when you say it that way it almost sounds like a threat...
What is credible in this context? (Score:2)
They spelt "bomb" correctly?
Re: (Score:3)
A 'credible' real threat is not a threat to public safety, it's a threat can persuade gullible journalists that the public needs to be afraid in spite of the absence of actual threats to public safety..
Re: (Score:1)
Up us! UP US!!! Why does everyone get that wrong?
After flying Delta nearly every week for two years (Score:2, Interesting)
my money is on a disgrunted passenger. Their employees are so angry and hateful that by the end of the flight, you want to bomb them. I just love six hours flights without even a snack. I've gotten free upgrades to first class a few times with my miles, and I think if I had just stomped someone's puppy to death in front of them they would have been less hostle than the last flight attendant I had in first class. Two flights before that there was vomit on the seat and the seat back in front of me that wa
Re:After flying Delta nearly every week for two ye (Score:4, Insightful)
This might have been harassment targeting one of the passengers.
That Finnish kid in lizardsquad grounded a plan with a Sony executive by making a false bomb threat.
What is there on a fighter that could help? (Score:2)
What is there on a fighter jet that could possibly help? It's a bomb threat. Fighters have... bombs, guns and missiles. Well, since we already don't want an explosion at the airport, bombs don't help. Missiles, pretty much the same deal except there's a nice WhhoooooOOOSH before it hits something. Seems bombs and missiles would only make matters worse. That leaves guns, typically used air-to-air or for strafing. Since they aren't under threat of air attack, strafing seems to be the most likely course
Re: (Score:3)
Eyeballs, and a brain.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the pilot has X-ray vision, his eyeballs ain't gonna help. Fighter Pilot: Yes, confirmed it's a plane that hasn't been hijacked and may or may not have a bomb on board. Commercial Pilot: Told you so.
That makes sense! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bringing a fighter jet to a bomb threat. That makes sense!
You don't have much of an imagination, do you? Or pay any kind of attention to actual events, pretty much ever?
... which might require destroying the aircraft before that could happen. Fighte
Escort aircraft can make observations and help with communications and recordings that can't be made any other way. One of the threats suggested the bomber was on board, implying the possibility that he might make demands which could include, possibly, making that aircraft into a weapon aimed at a metropolitan area
Credible, Really??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Would you want to be the guy who ignored the bomb threat, after a plane (or two) blew up?
Put it this way: following procedure (when it later turned out it wasn't actually necessary to do so) won't end your career. Failing to follow procedure (when the threat turned out to be valid) almost certainly will. "But the bomb threat didn't really make sense, because (reasons)" will probably not be seen as a valid defense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Some random twitter loser says he put bombs on two separate planes at the same time in different parts of the country? Not remotely credible.
It is quite possible, if he had an accomplice.
I agree that the guy was basically covering his ass, but he should be fired for being such a gullible idiot.
If he was correctly following the procedures that were set up, it's hard to justify firing him because the procedures aren't to your liking. A more rational response would be to change the procedures.
Re:Credible, Really??? (Score:4, Funny)
He can be in two places at once?
When he's not anywhere at all?
Terrorists have won (Score:1)
Nuff said
Someone needs to be fired over this (Score:1)
So this "credible" threat is some random post on fucking TWITTER?
Whoever thought this was a credible threat should be fired and forced to pay for all the expenses involved.
Ah, right, but we let this become an insane world. Where the above person will get a huge promotion and the 5-year old idiot posting to twatter will wind up locked away as some evil terrorist.
credible enough (Score:2)
F16s? Why? (Score:2)
APD looked for the bombs? (Score:1, Funny)
Wait a minute. How was APD already there to search for bombs? Their standard crime response time is at least two weeks.
do not ask why (Score:1)
do not ask why someone might hate america so much they want to kill themselves and lots of other people....
be impressed by the ludicrously expensive fighter planes you paid for and pretend its a video game.....
never question the us government's appalling human rights record that serves as recruitment campaign for terrrorists.....
allways judge other countries by the corrupt puppet reigmes put in place by the WTO at the behest of the american government ....
allways believe fox news.....
Twitter Leads Instagram (Score:2)
Is this an area where Twitter leads Instagram?