pilots refuse to fly with gun loons onboard

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:35:31 GMT, AH#49 "Asshole™#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.


The 4th plane didn't know
their fate and the fate of the other planes until long after the
terrorists had taken over the cockpit and killed the pilots. What
does the SM add that would have changed their final outcome?

He would be armed and would have (I hope) shot the ****ers dead trying
to get inside.
After all, who but somebody that was incredibly stupid would try to
enter the cockpit besides flight personnel?

You're forgetting the mindset of before 9/11. Without the knowledge
of the fate of the other hijacked planes, the 4 hijackers had total
control of that plane with box cutters. One hijacker said he had a
bomb strapped to himself. Does the SM take the chance and shoot? I
don't know.

And no, a bullet that pierces the hull of a plane will not suck all the
passengers out through it like Bond, James Bond said it would in
"Goldfinger" when he was chatting to Pussy Galore.

I don't believe I implied as such. There is ammunition you can shoot
inside a plane which will not even penetrate the outside of the
fuselage.

Bogart wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:35:31 GMT, AH#49 "Asshole™#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.


Let them try then.
I know for a fact that I can dispatch a **** stain with a knife a lot
faster then he can me, being armed with a gun.
After all, THEY don't know who is the Sky Marshall!
Regardless, all the more reason for the pilots to be armed as well,
just in case.



The 4th plane didn't know
their fate and the fate of the other planes until long after the
terrorists had taken over the cockpit and killed the pilots. What
does the SM add that would have changed their final outcome?

He would be armed and would have (I hope) shot the ****ers dead trying
to get inside.
After all, who but somebody that was incredibly stupid would try to
enter the cockpit besides flight personnel?

You're forgetting the mindset of before 9/11. Without the knowledge
of the fate of the other hijacked planes, the 4 hijackers had total
control of that plane with box cutters. One hijacker said he had a
bomb strapped to himself.

Like terrorists are trustworthy?
Don't make me laugh laugh laugh.

Does the SM take the chance and shoot? I
don't know.

Exactly.
Until such an attempt happens again, we will never know.
I say we arm the people to the teeth.



And no, a bullet that pierces the hull of a plane will not suck all the
passengers out through it like Bond, James Bond said it would in
"Goldfinger" when he was chatting to Pussy Galore.

I don't believe I implied as such. There is ammunition you can shoot
inside a plane which will not even penetrate the outside of the
fuselage.

I am sure there is.
But as long as it penetrates the skull and or any other body part of
the mad men that wish to steer a plane into the masses or a nuke power
plant below, so be it!
The flight is doomed or survivable.
I say have people aboard that can shoot the ****ers that hijacked
while in it, VS blow it out of the sky as a last resort.

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 23:45:03 GMT, AH#49 "Asshole™#49"@ your.net
wrote:

Bogart wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:35:31 GMT, AH#49 "Asshole™#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.


Let them try then.
I know for a fact that I can dispatch a **** stain with a knife a lot
faster then he can me, being armed with a gun.
After all, THEY don't know who is the Sky Marshall!

You and every other able bodied passenger are going to handle the
situation as the passengers on three planes have done since 9/11.

Regardless, all the more reason for the pilots to be armed as well,
just in case.

I have no objections, as long as they're trained to handle the gun
they're issued.

The 4th plane didn't know
their fate and the fate of the other planes until long after the
terrorists had taken over the cockpit and killed the pilots. What
does the SM add that would have changed their final outcome?

He would be armed and would have (I hope) shot the ****ers dead trying
to get inside.
After all, who but somebody that was incredibly stupid would try to
enter the cockpit besides flight personnel?

You're forgetting the mindset of before 9/11. Without the knowledge
of the fate of the other hijacked planes, the 4 hijackers had total
control of that plane with box cutters. One hijacker said he had a
bomb strapped to himself.

Like terrorists are trustworthy?
Don't make me laugh laugh laugh.

Again, prior to learning about the other three planes, why would those
on the Pennsylvania flight doubt they had a bomb on board? Why would
think they were not returning to the airport? Remember, prior to 9/11
domestic hijackings ended up in Cuba, passengers and plain unharmed.
No one knew they were on a suicide mission on 9/11.

Does the SM take the chance and shoot? I
don't know.

Exactly.
Until such an attempt happens again, we will never know.
I say we arm the people to the teeth.

Well, I'd like to make sure those armed are qualified to carry, but I
really don't think we need everyone armed to the teeth on airliners.

And no, a bullet that pierces the hull of a plane will not suck all the
passengers out through it like Bond, James Bond said it would in
"Goldfinger" when he was chatting to Pussy Galore.

I don't believe I implied as such. There is ammunition you can shoot
inside a plane which will not even penetrate the outside of the
fuselage.

I am sure there is.
But as long as it penetrates the skull and or any other body part of
the mad men that wish to steer a plane into the masses or a nuke power
plant below, so be it!
The flight is doomed or survivable.
I say have people aboard that can shoot the ****ers that hijacked
while in it, VS blow it out of the sky as a last resort.

I think one way or another there will never be another domestic
hijacking where the passengers will just sit there like sheep,
regardless of what the hijackers are armed with for weapons. If you
know you're probably going to die if you don't act, then you take the
necessary steps to either prevent the hijackers from executing their
plan where you'll die anyway, or you all die trying.

" Bogart " wrote in message
s.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?

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. I've explained this
to you twice already and explaining it to you again is a waste of
time. You don't seem to be able to comprehend human nature. 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. I've already told you of three instances in the US where the
passengers took care of the threat immediately.

I've given you my opinion based on experience and personal knowledge.
I don't intend to argue it further with you.

" 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.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:09:02 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

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

Then go away.

From where?

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:09:02 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

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?

You are one thick dumb son of a bitch.

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.

What does it take for you to understand the difference between a
situation where you are between a rock and a hard place verses a
situation where you have choices that don't involve being killed. If
you see someone being mugged on the street you have at least three
choices. You can just ignore the situation and mind your own
business, you can go look for a policeman or you can risk your life by
intervening to help the victim. Two of those choices do not involve
personal risk. If you are on an airplane that is being commandeered
by lunatics hell bent on killing everyone on board you have little to
lose attacking the hijackers.

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.

They obviously don't make sense to a disfunctional troglodyte like
yourself who seems to like having an argument just for the sake of
arguing. ****ing moron.

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?

In this era that is probably true. Rest assured, the passengers are
not going to sit around like sheep these days against some turd with a
box cutter and a sky marshal could easily end up shooting a hole in
the plane. Guns are extremely dangerous on a pressurized aircraft.

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?

We have also had at least three cases where there was no sky marshal
and the passengers took care of the threat without the possibility of
a gun endangering the aircraft, so what's your point?

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.

Oh my, well I guess we are going to have to see your credentials as
well aren't we dip ****?

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

Then go away.

**** off Scout. You're an idiot.

"Ken Ehrett" wrote in message
s.com...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:09:02 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

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?

You are one thick dumb son of a bitch.

Well, I'm trying to understand why you feel everything is going to change
because the "building" happens to be airborne.


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.

What does it take for you to understand the difference between a
situation where you are between a rock and a hard place verses a
situation where you have choices that don't involve being killed. If
you see someone being mugged on the street you have at least three
choices. You can just ignore the situation and mind your own
business, you can go look for a policeman or you can risk your life by
intervening to help the victim. Two of those choices do not involve
personal risk. If you are on an airplane that is being commandeered
by lunatics hell bent on killing everyone on board you have little to
lose attacking the hijackers.

Yep, even on the ground people do help out, and oddly I'm not aware of any
cases where the undercover officer trying to arrest the criminal is the one
who is jumped by bystanders.



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.

They obviously don't make sense to a disfunctional troglodyte like
yourself who seems to like having an argument just for the sake of
arguing. ****ing moron.

Well, you make claims about their opinions, can't support those claims, and
those claims seem contrary to established facts....so tell me again why I
should blindly accept your unsupported claims?


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?

In this era that is probably true. Rest assured, the passengers are
not going to sit around like sheep these days against some turd with a
box cutter and a sky marshal could easily end up shooting a hole in
the plane. Guns are extremely dangerous on a pressurized aircraft.

Oh, God, not the utterly ignorant and stupid assertion that a bullet hole
will cause an explosive decompression of the aircraft.

Ok, at this point, it is quite clear that you don't have any idea what
you're talking about. Even a person that has done even the least amount of
research, much less one that knows all the SMs you claim, would know that a
bullet hole in a modern airliner is NOT, repeat NOT, a problem.

Come back when you know what you're talking about.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 23:04:36 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Bwahaha. Nice try, Ken. It's like trying to reason with a moron.


"Ken Ehrett" wrote in message
ws.com...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:09:02 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

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?

You are one thick dumb son of a bitch.

Well, I'm trying to understand why you feel everything is going to change
because the "building" happens to be airborne.


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.

What does it take for you to understand the difference between a
situation where you are between a rock and a hard place verses a
situation where you have choices that don't involve being killed. If
you see someone being mugged on the street you have at least three
choices. You can just ignore the situation and mind your own
business, you can go look for a policeman or you can risk your life by
intervening to help the victim. Two of those choices do not involve
personal risk. If you are on an airplane that is being commandeered
by lunatics hell bent on killing everyone on board you have little to
lose attacking the hijackers.

Yep, even on the ground people do help out, and oddly I'm not aware of any
cases where the undercover officer trying to arrest the criminal is the one
who is jumped by bystanders.



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.

They obviously don't make sense to a disfunctional troglodyte like
yourself who seems to like having an argument just for the sake of
arguing. ****ing moron.

Well, you make claims about their opinions, can't support those claims, and
those claims seem contrary to established facts....so tell me again why I
should blindly accept your unsupported claims?


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?

In this era that is probably true. Rest assured, the passengers are
not going to sit around like sheep these days against some turd with a
box cutter and a sky marshal could easily end up shooting a hole in
the plane. Guns are extremely dangerous on a pressurized aircraft.

Oh, God, not the utterly ignorant and stupid assertion that a bullet hole
will cause an explosive decompression of the aircraft.

Ok, at this point, it is quite clear that you don't have any idea what
you're talking about. Even a person that has done even the least amount of
research, much less one that knows all the SMs you claim, would know that a
bullet hole in a modern airliner is NOT, repeat NOT, a problem.

Come back when you know what you're talking about.