Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Transportation

Bomb Threats Via Twitter Partly Shut Down Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport 110

Posted by timothy from the don't-expect-luggage-to-arrive dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bomb Threats Via Twitter Partly Shut Down Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport More

Bomb Threats Via Twitter Partly Shut Down Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport

Comments Filter:

  • Ethics in Travel Reviews (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    #TravelGate

  • Prudient action (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    But this kind of thing could have us chasing our tails.

  • Other than the obligatory security theatre... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rnturn ( 11092 ) on Saturday January 24, 2015 @06:15PM (#48895369)

    ... 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.

    • ... 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.

      • 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.

        And if it strays off its assigned route? Do you really think they are going to shoot it down?

        • Yes, I really do think they would shoot it down. If the plane strays then it means the pilot is either not in control or not obeying instructions from the air traffic control. Either one of those conditions will tighten enough sphincters on the ground that the kill order will be given if they fail to repsond to enough radio hails. They scrambled a couple of fighters to deal with a float plane in restricted airspace back in 2010. I'd heard military jets howling overhead many times, but I'd never heard a
          • I'm more concerned that the mass panic over a couple of sonic booms caused enough calls to 911 to take down the system for a short time. Hypersensitive indeed.
            • I wasn't one of the ones that called 911 but the booms from the sky were loud enough to make you stop whatever you were doing and wonder what bad thing had happened somewhere. Unforgettable if you've never experienced one before. I imagine this was because the fighters were coming in pretty low to be flying at that speed.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by murdocj ( 543661 )

          Remember 9/11? You damn well better believe the fighters would shoot the plane down if it strayed.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by quenda ( 644621 )

            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?

            • No, he's referencing the idea that authorities would rather shoot the plane down than let it crash into something important.

              • No, he's referencing the idea that authorities would rather shoot the plane down than let it crash into something important.

                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)

                  by quenda ( 644621 )

                  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)

          by R3d M3rcury ( 871886 ) on Saturday January 24, 2015 @09:33PM (#48896237) Journal

          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.

          • "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.

        • 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.

    • 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:Other than the obligatory security theatre... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Saturday January 24, 2015 @06:54PM (#48895581) Homepage
      Aside from the few hundred lives vs. a few thousand lives if the plane was actually hijacked and attempted another 9/11 style crash into a metropolitan area there is another reason you might want a chase aircraft - obtaining camera footage of the plane should the threat prove genuine and the plane is blown up. I would imagine such data might prove quite useful to the resultant investigation in terms of narrowing down where the bomb was located, how powerful it was, whether it was carried on or checked, and potentially even narrow down who might have got the bomb onboard.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. The only things I see is a completely worthless show-of-force and aid in locating the wreckage if the threat is real...

    • Jets are scrambled to provide 'eyes on'. Whatever happens, there is a couple pairs of eyes, and probably cameras, to see exactly what happens.
      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)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      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)

      by Greyfox ( 87712 )
      If they think the threat is designed to secure passenger/crew compliance for another 9/11 style attack, yeah, I think they would shoot down a civilian aircraft if it didn't respond to their orders. Of course, passengers and crew these days expect any such threat to result in another 9/11 style attack and have proven repeatedly that they will beat the shit out of and quite possibly kill anyone trying to pull shit on their airplane. So the fighter jet is still just multi-million-dollar dick waving. It's proba

    • ... 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.

    • ... 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)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday January 24, 2015 @06:17PM (#48895391)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      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)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Nice paid-for moderation...

      • Hey, stop giving away the Republican political strategy! No one read this! Terrorists! Immigrant Terrorists, carrying Ebola!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          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)

      by NoKaOi ( 1415755 )

      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)

        by raind ( 174356 )

        That's why I changed my sig. It's also the name of a rock and roll song.

      • getting reelected by convincing the populous that they will get blown up if they vote for the other guy

        Gee, when you say it that way it almost sounds like a threat...

  • They spelt "bomb" correctly?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Livius ( 318358 )

      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..

  • After flying Delta nearly every week for two years (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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

  • 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

    • What is there on a fighter jet that could possibly help?

      Eyeballs, and a brain.

      • 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.

  • Bringing a fighter jet to a bomb threat. That makes sense!

    • 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?

      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 ... which might require destroying the aircraft before that could happen. Fighte

  • Credible, Really??? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Chris453 ( 1092253 ) on Saturday January 24, 2015 @08:19PM (#48895931)
    TFA states that the guy posted to a twitter account stating that he put a bomb on a plane in Portland, and then posted again saying he placed one on a plane in Milwaukee. How the hell is that credible? He can be in two places at once? That didn't raise any flags about it being bogus? Airport spokesman Reese McCranie said "We believe the threats to be credible". Wow, just wow.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Jeremi ( 14640 )

      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.

      • I think common sense should prevail in situations like this. 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. Are we going to shut down every airport in the country because he claims to have hidden a bomb "somewhere" in an airport? You get a random threat and you start looking more critically, but you don't shut down the runway for hours on end and detain hundreds of people (which is exactly what they did since

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Jeremi ( 14640 )

          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)

      by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Saturday January 24, 2015 @11:01PM (#48896557) Journal

      He can be in two places at once?

      When he's not anywhere at all?

  • Terrorists have won (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Nuff said

  • 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.

  • The threat was credible enough to get fighters launched to escort the plane. How much more credible does it need to be to get the plane shot down. Do the pilots of commercial airlines use encrypted radio to talk to the fighter pilots ? Or could that have been compromised ? Seems the perps got reasonably close to bringing the plane down without having to bring any explosives on board.
  • I'm really curious what the F16s were supposed to do... It's not like the pilots could have just hopped aboard to help defuse the bombs. Were they supposed to blow the planes up if the bombs had been real? Uh... what good would that have done?

  • 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 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.....

  • Is this an area where Twitter leads Instagram?

Slashdot Top Deals

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Close