I think it must have been a mechanical problem. It usually is pilot error, but I don't think so this time. Especially if the plane made a U-turn to hit the building - that's really odd. I just hope we don't all get hysterical about another boogy man like civil aviation and take our eye off the real problems. People love to freak out over small plane crashes and it'll probably never happen again.

Wow... the poster who noted that today’s date is 9/11/01 upside down sure has an eye! Sort of reminds me of all the similarities between the JFK and Lincoln assassinations. Weren't they exactly 100 years apart? There is a long list of such coincidences.

I actually sent/submitted the exact letter I have below on Skyscraper safety to Myturn at Newsweek about an hour before this crash too. It is something I've always been very concerned about but that was odd.

Native Americans, of course, don't believe that anything happens by chance. Their religion is an interesting study to say the least.

They cannot seem to determine if it was a fixed wing or a helicopter. What if it was both? How did a woman confidently say she saw a helicopter falling in a ball of fire and others see the fixed wing having problems. Maybe the fixed wing was trying to miss the helicopter and they impacted.

Write today's date on a piece of paper 10-11-06. Now flip it upside down. Strange huh?

Why do NBC (and other news outlets) report the owner of the plane and even declare him dead so soon after the accident?

I'm sure this poor man's family isn't even notified and you're reporting that he's dead. Shame on you. Imagine how it would feel to hear such news on the news. Yes, he's a 'celebrity, but he's also a person. A person with people who love him. Those loved ones deserve respect.

What a sad statement this is on the "new normal"--to say we're glad the crash turned out to be accidental...

The "experts" on MSNBC do not know the NY airspace. WHen an aircraft is below 1100 feet over the East River or Hudson River, no communication with Air Traffic Control is required. This is a specific uncontrolled area. Above 1100 feet, up to 7000 feet, and over Manhattan itself, an aircraft would be in what's called "class B" airspace. In that airspace, an aircraft needs a clearance from New York TRACON, the approach controllers for Kennedy or LaGuardia airports. The controller will issue a clearance and provide separation from all other aircraft in that airspace. If the plane was over the river, below 1100 feet, he was perfectly legal. The controlled airspace starts over land. It is possible that the pilot lost control of the plane while over the river, and then strayed over the land, into the building.

What terrible memories this brings back. We're all thinking of you New Yorkers, and so grateful that it appears to be a tragic accident rather than terrorism.

It certainly became very quiet in my office for a little while until we got more details. I realize every news organization was rushing to get the story on the air & web but some were much less credible than others. NBC/MSNBC coverage was very good the worst was CNN.com which originally had the building that was hit as being both close to Rockefeller Center and the Hudson River. For those who do not know NYC, the building in question is within spitting distance of the East River and miles, yes miles, away from the other two sites. Yes all news organizations want to get the story first, but it cannot be at the expense of getting so wrong. Shame on CNN.

The safety of skyscrapers is obviously a much more serious issue than most people think.

Are such excessively tall buildings like the World Trace Centers TOO TALL? Lost in the horrific 9/11 attack was the politely forgotten negligence of anyone who would even allow such “excessively tall” buildings to be built in the first place without ever having developed a way to get people out in the event of a fire. Amazingly, it was also estimated that it would have taken fully-equipped fire fighters SEVEN HOURS just to reach the fire. Does that sound safe to you?

Big cities around the world clamor for the biggest skyscrapers as a status symbol, but such a race politely overlooked the safety aspects involved. Heck, my grandfather had a piece of the B-25 Bomber that flew into the Empire State Building by accident back in the 1945. Long before 9/11, hijackers also tried to fly a jumbo jet airliner into a Caribbean hotel only to be foiled at the last minute by struggling pilots. Thus, 9/11 should have been properly anticipated and defended against. Oh, but dare I forget that would have costs money.

NINE IGNORED SAFETY PRECAUTIONS:
There are indeed ways to protect a massive building from such an attack but they were not used. For example, to protect key internal components like stairwells, elevators, vents, and so on they now design protective concrete inner cores (1) that run all the way up through the center of the building. By using such an inner core, key elevators can be kept in operation (during the actual fire) so that fire fighters can reach the upper floors by simply taking the elevator. A building can be designed with safe rooms (2) on every other floor, which protect people from fire and smoke while they wait for help. Another safety feature can be found on the twin PETRONAS towers in Indonesia. A walking bridge (3) connects their side-by-side towers midway up and is not only beneficial for getting back and forth but it also provides an alternate means of escape. There was also the possibility for emergency rooftop parachutes to be provided (4) but were not.

All of these safety features where built into the new Taipei 101 skyscraper in Taiwan (now the world’s tallest). So why not here? No new technology was required, just common sense. One could also argue that such large buildings and densely populated city centers would actually need small defensive positions (5) to defend them from air or land attack as well. A small garrison of 25 National Guard personnel with a Patriot missile launcher on the roof and an Armored Personnel Carrier (APC) in the garage would have been all that was needed.

If we were really THAT CONCERNED with safety, we could have also developed a hovering platform (6) like the one that is now - finally - being developed by a small company in Israel called AeroSafe (apparently the only people who care). Their Eagle hovering platform (photo below) can be used to get people out of a very tall burning building by holding position right up against the side of the building: allowing people to simply walk on while allowing firefighters direct access to the building's upper floors. A similar walking-bridge ladder (7) could have actually been attached to the sides of a transport helicopters, which would have also helped in the rooftop rescue of Katrina victims rather than having to hoist them all up one at a time.

City planners could have also called for a fleet of aerial firefighting helicopters (8) like they use to fight forest fires, too. The airliner passenger jets themselves could have also had much better safeguards installed to prevent a take over (9), not to mention the possible use of air marshals (10).

These are all the sorts of precautionary measures that SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN BEFOREHAND but were not. If designed properly, a building of any size is possible. But not if we politely overlook such necessities.

Post your thoughts here:
http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?ThreadID=95957

My thoughts go out to all of you in NYC. When I heard about this, my stomach started churning, so I cannot imagine what it is like for you New Yorkers.