pilots refuse to fly with gun loons onboard

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Rob Perkins wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 12:54:01 GMT, Martin Hotze
wrote:

for sure. clean races, you know. and of proper religious mindset. at least
he will not look like a so called "camelfuc*er"

Good grief. Are you even worth taking to?

Martin doesn't use smileys or sarcasm tags, but I'm 99.9% certain he's
being deeply, utterly sarcastic in the above comment, given some of his
past statements about current US policy and his dislike of it...

Brian.

"LIBassbug" wrote in message

Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina

,

It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?


When he hunted naked, he had to keep his knife somewhere.

What about the sheath clipped onto his bow tie?

That's where he keeps his little chopper.

"LIBassbug" wrote in message

Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or
vagina

,


It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?

On our planet rectums and vaginas have small openings.


Not after Mort's stuffed them full of razor blades...

Florida.

From VA downwards people get weirder.

nick wrote:

"LIBassbug" wrote in message


Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina

,


It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?

On our planet rectums and vaginas have small openings.


Not after Mort's stuffed them full of razor blades...



That reminds me of a show I saw in Thailand. I'm still spooked after
being hit by an airborne banana at the same venue.

nick wrote:

"LIBassbug" wrote in message


Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina

,


It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?


When he hunted naked, he had to keep his knife somewhere.

What about the sheath clipped onto his bow tie?


That's where he keeps his little chopper.


Reminds me of another Mort quote:

Quote from Mort on t.p.g.

What test do you have to pass before you buy a car, have sex, get
married, light a gasappliance or any of the thousands of other
activitiesthat can have dire results? NONE.

" Bogart " wrote in message
s.com...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:30:34 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...

snip

Feel free to argue your " theories " with someone else.

So what are you claiming? If they don't feel they are more likely to be
seen
as a threat rather than an aid, what exactly are you trying to show? That
people are most likely to feel and know they are a solution, and not part
of
the problem?

I've explained it to you twice. That's it.

Oh, and I'm still awaiting your presentation of this "opinion" you assert
they hold.

You'll have a long wait. As I said, it's from personal experience and
personal contacts.

In short, you're telling me that this personal, and "popular" opinion is so
well known and prevalent that not a single SM has EVER told it to a
reporter?

I will simply note that your 3rd person testimony means nothing.

" Bogart " wrote in message
s.com...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:34:21 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:35:31 GMT, AH#49 "AssholeT#49"@ your.net
wrote:

Bogart wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Yep, and that's what happened on the 4th plane. What I want to know
is
how
having a sky marshal on board would have made matters worse. Would
those
passengers have died twice?

How would having a SM on board have helped?

Possibly by making sure that the Sky Marshall sits in first class, and
gets to shoot the first person he sees that attempts to enter the
Cockpit by force or without the "secret knock."

Sitting in first class just makes it easier for the hijackers. They'll
slaughter all the first class passengers first.

Cool which means when the pilots/passengers open up it will be a free
fire
zone and we won't have to worry about innocent bystanders.

Isn't it interesting how your notation of how things would work in the
air
have absolutely no counterpart on the ground. So tell me, why the change
in
attitude? Is it a function of altitude?

What the hell is the matter with you? Of course the situation is
different in the air as opposed to on the ground.

Right. Sure. Except it doesn't happen.

I've explained this
to you twice already and explaining it to you again is a waste of
time.

No, you made strange assertions which make no sense.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend human nature.

And having a plane load of unarmed people is BETTER to stop them, than
having a SM on board?

Interesting how given this human nature you prefer the victims to have NO
defense.

You're
in an environment where the passengers have nothing to loose. You
draw a gun or weapon on a plane today and you will get attacked and
subdued.

So, since we have had SM on board planes since 9/11 you can show me of at
least one case of a SM being jumped like this. Seems like it doesn't happen
in reality, now does it?

I've already told you of three instances in the US where the
passengers took care of the threat immediately.

Yep, and they did so at extreme risk, and in every case they managed NOT to
jump the SM by mistake.

I've given you my opinion based on experience and personal knowledge.

Really?

Please present your creditials that you have any experience and personal
knowledge about airline security, self defense, and terrorists response to
have your opinion matter in the least.


I don't intend to argue it further with you.

Then go away.

"Nomen Nescio" ] wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Little John

They use Glasers, a bullet designed specifically for use by air
marshalls. If
you're unfamiliar with them, they're compressed lead shot in a thin
copper
jacket with a plastic tip. They're so frangible, they won't go through
both
sides of the typical house's drywall walls with any real force left.
But,
they
pack a helluva whollop when they hit a former bad guy.

While I like the Glasers and my wife swears by them for her .38 snubby,
the US Sky Marshalls
are not using them in airliners. They are now using the .357 Sig round in
FMJ. The reason
that I've heard is that it's very effective for shooting through a hostage
and still having enough
energy to drop a terrorist. It makes sense, but I wouldn't want to be the
hostage.

Given the alternative, I'm willing to accept that risk.

" Bogart " wrote in message
s.com...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:04:33 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:08:13 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


"Bill Funk" wrote in message
news On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:37:33 -0700, "Kevin McCue"
wrote:

Wanna bet your life that they wouldn't miss? I wouldn't. I'd
rather
deal
with the terrorist.
Since the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity seems to think that the
terrorist are likely trained ATP's how will the Air Marshal stop
them
when
they are locked behind that now reinforced, bullet proof cockpit
door?

The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked, bullet proof
door is for someone to open it.
The British pliots (or rather, their union) seem to think that
having
the pilots open that door is a really good idea.

Right, which is why it was managed to be opened by a couple of people
armed
with nothing more than a drink cart.

How did they open a locked bullet proof door with a drink cart?

They rammed the door with it.

You're claiming a locked bulletproof door gave way to ramming from a
drink cart? Cite please.

Already provided.

Oh, and I will note your vast experience and personal knowledge is
somewhat..........limited.

"Yardpilot" wrote in message
news:TX8Jb.38992$xX.133717@attbi_s02...

" Bogart " wrote in message
s.com...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:04:33 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:08:13 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


"Bill Funk" wrote in message
news On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:37:33 -0700, "Kevin McCue"
wrote:

Wanna bet your life that they wouldn't miss? I wouldn't. I'd
rather
deal
with the terrorist.
Since the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity seems to think that
the
terrorist are likely trained ATP's how will the Air Marshal stop
them
when
they are locked behind that now reinforced, bullet proof cockpit
door?

The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked, bullet
proof
door is for someone to open it.
The British pliots (or rather, their union) seem to think that
having
the pilots open that door is a really good idea.

Right, which is why it was managed to be opened by a couple of
people
armed
with nothing more than a drink cart.

How did they open a locked bullet proof door with a drink cart?

They rammed the door with it.

You're claiming a locked bulletproof door gave way to ramming from a
drink cart?

I don't see why it couldn't happen. A bullet proof vest won't sto0p an
icepick.


http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/A...shalsWSJE.html

" Reinforced cockpit doors are now in place, but because of engineering
constraints few experts have much faith in their effectiveness. Last
summer, on a bet to test the doors' strength, an overnight cleaning
crew at Dulles Airport near Washington, D.C. rammed a drink cart into
one of the new doors on a United Airlines plane. The door reportedly
broke off its hinges. The doors for European airlines generally provide
even less protection."

-*MORT*-