Skip to comments.
BOAT KIDS STUN POLICE AT JFK
NY POST ^
| 12 AUGUST 2003
| JENNIFER FERMINO and HASANI GITTENS
Posted on 08/12/2003 5:32:20 AM PDT by csvset
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:15:55 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
In a shocking security breach at JFK Airport, three teens wandered around an active runway - and were so under the radar that they had to turn themselves in to Port Authority cops, it was revealed yesterday.
The incident began shortly after Joel Phagoo, his kid brother and a cousin launched an inflatable raft to go fishing in Jamaica Bay near the airport, WABC-TV reported last night. When the weather turned bad, the raft drifted toward JFK.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: New York; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: airportsecurity; asleepatthewheel; jfkairport; portauthority; wtc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 next last
Note to Mohammad & Osama, don't try this. Just because kids can get away with it doesn't mean you can. /sarcasm.
1
posted on
08/12/2003 5:32:21 AM PDT
by
csvset
To: csvset
Why is there no perimete surveillance?
Did we not just hear that there is concern about missile launchers from shoulder mounts.
Where are all that national security billions going? Payoffs payoffs payoffs and more political payoffs.
Not one more dime without accountability.
2
posted on
08/12/2003 5:37:10 AM PDT
by
OldFriend
((Dems inhabit a parallel universe))
To: csvset
Why is there no perimeter surveillance?
Did we not just hear that there is concern about missile launchers from shoulder mounts.
Where are all that national security billions going? Payoffs payoffs payoffs and more political payoffs.
Not one more dime without accountability.
3
posted on
08/12/2003 5:37:22 AM PDT
by
OldFriend
((Dems inhabit a parallel universe))
To: csvset
I'm a little slow this morning. All the references to "PA" in the article had me thinking that the Palestinian Authority was in charge of security at JFK. Turns out it's the Port Authority. Whew!
4
posted on
08/12/2003 5:38:41 AM PDT
by
ClearCase_guy
(France delenda est)
To: OldFriend
They could have just as easily launched from the boat. But they could have caused a plane crash being on the tarmac.
5
posted on
08/12/2003 5:39:29 AM PDT
by
AppyPappy
(If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
To: AppyPappy
They could have just as easily launched from the boat. True, and they don't even have to get that close. A large passenger jet on takeoff leaves behind it a HUGE heat signature and, because it is moving relatively slowly at a low altitude, is an easy target for a MANPAD.
However, before you all go cancelling your plane tickets, remember that the missile will home in on the engine, NOT the passenger cabin. Almost all airliners today are designed to be able to fly and land safely even with on engine completely missing from the wing.
It would make spectacular news footage, but the likelyhood of a MANPAD actuall bringing a 747 DOWN is pretty slim.
6
posted on
08/12/2003 5:44:19 AM PDT
by
WestPacSailor
(I used to be clueless but I've turned that situation around 360 degrees.)
To: csvset
"If these were three kids with SAM [Surface to Air] missiles, we'd all be saying something different."
Come on, everyone knows that you have to be at least 18 to buy a SAM.
7
posted on
08/12/2003 5:49:25 AM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: WestPacSailor
"It would make spectacular news footage, but the likelyhood of a MANPAD actuall bringing a 747 DOWN is pretty slim."I don't know about you, but I would not want to be on one of those "Pretty Slim" 747's.Good ole Murphy has a habit of showing himself.
To: WestPacSailor
Why do you think they wouldn't be smart enough to fire two or three?
These guys are fanatics, but not stupid.
The offense always has the advantage over the defense. That's why removing the source of the problem is the resolution.
9
posted on
08/12/2003 5:54:30 AM PDT
by
Blueflag
(Res ipsa loquitor)
To: csvset
Unreal.
10
posted on
08/12/2003 5:54:33 AM PDT
by
SerpentDove
(Each post focus-group tested for maximum wallop.)
To: WestPacSailor
Yes, and no. A MANPAD **would** home in on an engine, but generally generate a "donut" shaped explosion, due to the shaping of the charge. Generally, enough to rupture the wing, and more importantly, the wing fuel tanks.
Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I'd PLAN on a MANPAD being able to down a jetliner, and plan security accordingly. . .
11
posted on
08/12/2003 5:55:48 AM PDT
by
Salgak
(don't mind me: the orbital mind control lasers are making me write this. . .)
To: JustAnAmerican
I don't know about you, but I would not want to be on one of those "Pretty Slim" 747'sDon't get me wrong...I would not want to be on one either! However, I still fly. I believe that when my number is up, it's up. Besides, I am destined to die doing something really stupid, nothing so mundane as an airplane crash.
Hey, Cleetus, hold muh beer...
12
posted on
08/12/2003 5:56:39 AM PDT
by
WestPacSailor
(I used to be clueless but I've turned that situation around 360 degrees.)
To: ClearCase_guy
I was having a problem grasping that too.
To: Blood of Tyrants
"Come on, everyone knows that you have to be at least 18 to buy a SAM.""
And sit out the 3 day waiting period also.
14
posted on
08/12/2003 5:59:24 AM PDT
by
Rebelbase
(In moderation of course.)
To: Salgak
...I'd PLAN on a MANPAD being able to down a jetliner, and plan security accordinglyCertainly a wise course of action. Plan for the worst, and take action accordingly.
15
posted on
08/12/2003 6:01:12 AM PDT
by
WestPacSailor
(I used to be clueless but I've turned that situation around 360 degrees.)
To: All
Get to the Airport 3 hours early, be searched and looked at like your carrying 20 pounds of TNT, trip and fall over hundreds of misplaced "bomb barriers"...and then a couple of kids take a hike on a runway and no one's noticing. Who's protecting who (whom) and what against? No wonder the Airline industry is broke.
If I don't have to fly, I won't, Airports and travel by air isn't fun anymore. It's down right dreadful.
16
posted on
08/12/2003 6:02:10 AM PDT
by
Dallas59
To: WestPacSailor
Almost all airliners today are designed to be able to fly and land safely even with on engine completely missing from the wing. That may be, however, can the airliner fly and land safely with an entire wing missing?
Doubt it.
And it would just be my kind of luck that the SAM would take out not only the engine but the wing as well.
17
posted on
08/12/2003 6:03:39 AM PDT
by
cuz_it_aint_their_money
(I’d quit my job and go on welfare tomorrow, except it would put me in a higher tax bracket!)
To: Blood of Tyrants
Come on, everyone knows that you have to be at least 18 to buy a SAM.Actually, you have to be 21 to buy a Destructive Device, according to the NFA. ;0)
To: Dallas59
Airports and travel by air isn't fun anymoreI believe it is actually punishment for something I did in a former life.
19
posted on
08/12/2003 6:05:23 AM PDT
by
WestPacSailor
(What? I know that. I already did that. Stop talking to me. Bad dog!)
To: WestPacSailor
Our family continues to fly.......well over one hundred flights since 9/11.......but my heart is always in my throat when my kids are flying.
20
posted on
08/12/2003 6:05:48 AM PDT
by
OldFriend
((Dems inhabit a parallel universe))
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson