plane crashes into side of Texas office building

Crash Eyewitness Speaks, Pilot Identified
Man recounts seeing 'big fireball and 'raining debris' after small plane crashes into side of Texas office building; name released of pilot who may have intentionally crashed plane


http://video.foxnews.com/v/4023594/crash-eyewitness-speaks-pilot-identified-/?playlist_id=87249

 

Yes, the building is right by the one I work out of and was at when it happened =(

I'm thankful we're not sharing the building with the IRS right now.

He supposedly started his house on fire and then flew the plane into the building that has the IRS in it. His suicide note he put online was taken down, but can still be easily found.

 

Last time plane crashed into building, two countries got invaded. Whose next?

 

so 'christian terrorists' on work?

 

He left documentation indicating his point was his beef with the taxing authority. Not religiously motivated, not even a pretense of same. Nice try New, but it won't stick.

 

The IRS is finally getting what they deserve, wonder why not many have done this to to them. IRS is the biggest terrorist in the American soil.

 

That's not a responsible statement. Flying a plane into a window and killing some admin assistant or copier tech is hardly "justified retribution".

 

Right on robjones! Geez...what a thing to say that 'the IRS is finally getting what they deserve'. Bet he'd think differently if he had a relative in that building!

 

It is an unfortunate whenever violence have to happen and Joe Stack came to a conclusion that it was the only solution left for him. The fault? the IRS, they fu&^ed with his mind for a long time, not just him but millions of others that it is a bit surprising that hardly anything such as this happened before.

The IRS needs to be accounted for his action that lead to people dying.

 

He didn't kill anyone except himself. Here's his 6 page suicide note:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0218102stack1.html

 

No, the IRS is accountable for their own actions, the guy in the plane accountable for his. The IRS needs reform, no question, but people are *still* accountable for their own crimes.
Here's a tally by the Washington Post RE the rather frequent practice of assaults & threats against IRS employees. SEE NEWS

One employee in the building did die according to reports. I doubt the guy in the plane had ever met the person.

 

Are you even American?

RJ, don't feed the trolls.

 

Sorry, lost my head.

 

IRS aren't humans.

 

It is a rather spooky note. If one ignores the BS in it, it touches on a variety of hot button issues that will likely be made into political fodder. I say BS because anyone working in software in California during the 90s and early 2000s wouldn't find a 40k loss to be a 10 year setback. Rather, it looks like this guy was a shortcut taker with a few loose screws.

All that said, one could easily spin this guy, and his note, as a premonition of things to come if things don't turn around in this country. Its the old, "You know things are bad when software engineers are flying themselves into government buildings" story. I know, I know, we've all heard that one before.

 

There's no doubt that the IRS is a violent, immoral, looting bunch, but this type of violence can not be justified.

 

I don't have any argument with his premise... and many would heartily agree with him, I just think his method of resolution wasn't a good call.

 

Yesterday, Joseph Stack deliberately flew an airplane into a building housing IRS offices in Austin, Texas, in order to advance the political grievances he outlined in a perfectly cogent suicide-manifesto.

The issue isn't whether Stack's grievances are real or his responses just; it is that the act unquestionably comports with the official definition. But as NBC's Pete Williams said of the official insistence that this was not an act of Terrorism: there are "a couple of reasons to say that . . . One is he’s an American citizen." Fox News' Megan Kelley asked Catherine Herridge about these denials: "I take it that they mean terrorism in the larger sense that most of us are used to?," to which Herridge replied: "they mean terrorism in that capital T way."


All of this underscores, yet again, that Terrorism is simultaneously the single most meaningless and most manipulated word in the American political lexicon. The term now has virtually nothing to do with the act itself and everything to do with the identity of the actor, especially his or her religious identity. It has really come to mean: "a Muslim who fights against or even expresses hostility towards the United States, Israel and their allies." That's why all of this confusion and doubt arose yesterday over whether a person who perpetrated a classic act of Terrorism should, in fact, be called a Terrorist: he's not a Muslim and isn't acting on behalf of standard Muslim grievances against the U.S. or Israel, and thus does not fit the "definition." One might concede that perhaps there's some technical sense in which term might apply to Stack, but as Fox News emphasized: it's not "terrorism in the larger sense that most of us are used to . . . terrorism in that capital T way." We all know who commits terrorism in "that capital T way," and it's not people named Joseph Stack.


Contrast the collective hesitance to call Stack a Terrorist with the extremely dubious circumstances under which that term is reflexively applied to Muslims. If a Muslim attacks a military base preparing to deploy soldiers to a war zone, that person is a Terrorist. If an American Muslim argues that violence against the U.S. (particularly when aimed at military targets) is justified due to American violence aimed at the Muslim world, that person is a Terrorist who deserves assassination. And if the U.S. military invades a Muslim country, Muslims who live in the invaded and occupied country and who fight back against the invading American army -- by attacking nothing but military targets -- are also Terrorists. Indeed, large numbers of detainees at Guantanamo were accused of being Terrorists for nothing more than attacking members of an invading foreign army in their country


In sum: a Muslim who attacks military targets, including in war zones or even in their own countries that have been invaded by a foreign army, are Terrorists. A non-Muslim who flies an airplane into a government building in pursuit of a political agenda is not, or at least is not a Real Terrorist with a capital T -- not the kind who should be tortured and thrown in a cage with no charges and assassinated with no due process. Nor are Christians who stand outside abortion clinics and murder doctors and clinic workers. Nor are acts undertaken by us or our favored allies designed to kill large numbers of civilians or which will recklessly cause such deaths as a means of terrorizing the population into desired behavioral change -- the Glorious Shock and Awe campaign and the pummeling of Gaza. Except as a means for demonizing Muslims, the word is used so inconsistently and manipulatively that it is impoverished of any discernible meaning.

If we're really going to vest virtually unlimited power in the Government to do anything it wants to people they call "Terrorists," we ought at least to have a common understanding of what the term means. But there is none. It's just become a malleable, all-justifying term to allow the U.S. Government carte blanche to do whatever it wants to Muslims it does not like or who do not like it (i.e., The Terrorists). It's really more of a hypnotic mantra than an actual word: its mere utterance causes the nation blindly to cheer on whatever is done against the Muslims who are so labeled.

read more http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/19/terrorism/index.html

 

Nothing makes you guys happier then when some other douchebag does something stupid, so you can scream, "hey look it is not just Muslims flying planes into shit and killing innocent people."

It just reeks of desperation.

 

Imagine that kind of flacid defence being used in court.
"yeah, well maybe I did kill him.... But someone else killed someone a few weeks ago too!"

if your only defence is to compare the barbarism commited by Muslims to the barbarism commited by some other arsehole you are in a worse position than we thought.