pilots refuse to fly with gun loons onboard

LIBassbug wrote:

Gregory Procter wrote:


LIBassbug wrote:


Gregory Procter wrote:


LIBassbug wrote:



Gregory Procter wrote:



LIBassbug wrote:




Eddy_Down wrote:




Morton Davis wrote:




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.


You have (5) very small fingers?

Is that a proposition?


No, it's a repeat of your pronouncement.

Is that when you told me you self fist?


No, when you told me you have a five finger arsehole.

Why do you care so much about how many fingers I can fit in my asshole?

You keep bringing the subject up - I'm waiting for some punch line.

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.

" Bogart " wrote in message
s.com...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:12:43 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


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

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

Already provided.

Finally, by Mort.

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

You seem to think repeating this over and over is somehow going to
affect or offend me. Why?


I found the info in another post.

-*MORT*-

" Bogart " wrote in message
s.com...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:02:05 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.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?

Why would something discussed among a group of professionals
necessarily become front page news?

Well, I would think an opinion that SM felt they were unnecessary, useless,
and a danger to passengers would be headline news. Don't you?


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

Suit yourself.

I will.

"J. Hall" wrote in message
m...
" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...

Who are you, and why are you interjecting facts into this
conversation?

Have I blinded everyone with science ? Sorry, I won't do it again.
Okay, yes I will, just for you (tensile stength) :

7075-T6 aluminium = 76,000 psi
Mild Steel = 50,000 psi

I think that's about right.

Actually mild steel is usually around 36,000 psi, by the time you get in
the range of 50,000 psi you are into the high strength steels.

" Bogart " wrote in message
s.com...
On 1 Jan 2004 20:44:46 -0800, (Teek) wrote:

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

Let me guess, you're rap's resident nutcase? I didn't say SM's feel
they are more likely to be seen as a " threat than as an aid. ".
I'm telling you how they feel. It's from personal experience and
personal contact. Not every one is an amateur detective.

So what are you saying, then? That they feel like they are not needed
and feel like they aren't doing much good?

SM's I've talked with have expressed some genuine concerns about being
jumped by passengers in certain situations. That is all. They will
do their jobs and will do a good job, regardless of the fact _I_ don't
think they are necessary on domestic US flights.

So how founded is this concern? Can you document even a single such event
taking place?

I mean we've had SM for decades, if this were going to happen, then isn't it
likely that it has already occurred at least once?

"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.

"Dave Whitmarsh" wrote in message
s.com...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:23:00 GMT, "Morton Davis"
wrote:


"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*-


A tripod webpage as a cite? C'mon Mort, you can't truly be serious
here boy.

Fine, then go to the source.

According to a report in Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine,a
cleaning crew 'tested' a new reinforced cockpit door by ramming it with a
beverage cart,and knocked the door off it's hinges.

" Bogart " wrote in message
s.com...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:12:43 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


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

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

Already provided.

Finally, by Mort.

No actually the message I refer to is by Jim Yanik. Which was posted almost
24 hours before your reply. However, perhaps you hadn't gotten to that
message yet. I do note that you have chosen not to respond to his message to
date.

" Bogart " wrote in message
s.com...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:23:00 GMT, "Morton Davis"
wrote:


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."

Thanks Mort. Scout seems too lazy to provide the cite himself.

Why repeat something that has already been presented?

Oh, and you might check out the message by Jim Yanik as well.