pilots refuse to fly with gun loons onboard

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.

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?

--
Chris.
http://****france.com/

New Zealand tubbies.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nztubbies.jpg

Vengeance is a hamburger that is eaten cold, writes Georges Dupuy in
Liberation.

No wonder the French military is a band of sissies, look at where they
get their stock from. (800k mpeg file.)
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/frenchfighters.mpeg

funny mp3
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/horserace.mp3

The new Three Stooge's
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/happyfamily.jpg

Two clowns.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/groggyclown.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nickclown.jpg

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

Like that will be an easy task, especially in light of your own
suggestion that the passengers wouldn't sit by while something like
this is going on.


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.

The passengers who acted above the fields of Pennsylvania knew what
happened to the Trade Center Towers, and knew they were going to die
if they did nothing. Whether the air marshal takes a shot or not is
his call, based on circumstances no one anywhere can predict, but
given an opportunity with a hijacker in control of the cockpit
threatening to detonate a bomb, maybe a double-tap to the head would
do the trick.

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 love the idea of frangible ammo, but the problem with it has been
its lack of penetration before it fragments. The ammo needs to
penetrate reliably through the skull wall before it fragments into the
brain. Same with a torso shot; it needs to penetrate a heavy jacket,
sweater, shirt, undershirt, and breast bone and *then* fragment into
the thoracic cavity. Frangible ammo is a lot better in this regard
than it was several years ago, but it occasionally suffers from
fragmenting on contact, which diffuses the kinetic energy that should
be used to penetrate the target. The risk of damaging electrical
systems and hydraulics is real, but limited - likelihood of causing
terminal damage is minimal. The risk of hitting another passenger is
also real and much more likely. Frangible ammo reduces the likelihood
of causing an unintentional fatal injury due to overpenetration and
ricochet, but the danger of an unintentional death or dismemberment
still exists in the dynamics of an actual shooting. A piece of advice
for the air marshals, or anybody else carrying on board: Don't act
until you are damn sure you have to, and confront the situation with
enough force to end it as quickly as possible.

Teek

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.

" Bogart " wrote in message ws.com...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:02:54 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


Is that what you really got from what I wrote? At some point if the
SM is to take action he has to use some sort of force.

Agreed.

How do you
suggest he draw out a gun or other weapon and not be jumped by
passengers in the post 9/11 era without announcing he's the SM.

He simply acts. Quickly and decisively. Against the terrorists. It
won't take long for the passengers to figure it out once they regain
their senses from a handgun being fired in closed-in, close quarters.
However, there is a danger of the passengers jumping the air marshal
*before* shots are fired, and as the good guy's weapon is being
brought on target. This likelihood is directly proportional to the
stealth, speed and smoothness upon which the weapon is deployed. This
is done with training and practice. Lots of it.

At
that point he loses the advantage of surprise.

Not necessarily. If he makes his presence known a tad too
early...maybe. But see my above comments.

There hasn't been, to my knowledge, an incident involving a terrorist
attempt since 9/11 when a SM was on board. If ever there is, you have
the potential of having the SM attacked and subdued by the passengers
before he ever gets a chance to do anything.

There has been a case of a guy with a very weak bladder that decided
to try and rush the front restroom. Two air marshals deployed
unhindered and unmolested, cuffed the "offending person", and took him
into custody. The toilet remained safe and intact from any
"internally stored, biological fluids". Both officers perhaps
deployed early. One should have been able to handle the situation,
while the other remained incognito but alert. It was sort of an
embarrassment for all parties involved, but the officers actions were
not entirely unwarranted.

Perhaps, but very unlikely, since the people will know who the terrorists
are long before the SM takes action.

Really? You honestly think that now with SM's on board it hasn't
occurred to the hijackers to bring an extra man on for the purpose of
taking out the SM?

You don't think AMs know this? I don't know if they commonly travel
in pairs, but I do know that sometimes there is more than one on
board, and not necessarily sitting together. Also, some airlines
don't have a problem with law enforcement officers carrying while
enroute to their destinations. Where are *they* sitting?


So tell me, how often is an undercover officer jumped while trying to stop a
mugging? Seems people are pretty well able to tell who is the real threat,
and who is protecting everyone else.

You seem less than adept at figuring it out.

Sounds like empty emotional rhetoric to me.

Talk to a SM. There are whole lot of them who don't agree with you.

Cite please, that SMs feel they are more likely to be seen as a threat than
as an aid.

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?

Teek

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

Eddy_Down wrote in message ws.com...
Bill Smith wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:51:13 GMT, Dave Whitmarsh
wrote:


On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:01:03 -0800, Bill Smith
wrote:


On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
wrote:


"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."

"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."

"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm



LOL!. They want ONLY terrorists armed! This is, all at once, hilarious
and tragically stupid.
Bill Smith

Your inability to comprehend basic English is a huge concern, Bill old
chap.


"Written assurances". Of what? They want to be told that trained
personnel are going to be used rather than just passing guns out to
the passengers? They want to be told that if they lose control of
their aircraft it will be shot down and there might just be a few
remedies to try before then?


It's called X-ray machines at the airport check-in terminals, doofus.

Not everything that can be used as a weapon is detected by X-ray
machines. And not all the detectable weapons are caught. Bad guys
can be real sneaky.

Teek

It's whining.

Bill Smith

No - I would like to defend myself though. Switzerland has low violent
crime rates - and as far as I know most households own firearms.

Ignorance abounds. In Switzerland they have a very small standing army and
every man is basically a reservist. By law he is required to have easy
access to his gun in case of mobilisation. Hence it is kept at home but it
is strictly for national defense.

What ignorance do you see in those statement?


Is that not the original reason for the second amendment. The right to
bear
arms was a national defensive measure not an excuse for every jerk to own
a
gun and play cowboys and indians.


The other ammendment discuss PERSONAL rights - thus the the right to bear
arms is given to the individual. No one is advocating playing "cowboys and
indians." It is the gun control morons who are the jerks - those who would
have us give up our rights and liberties.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:53:05 GMT, " Bogart "
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:30:34 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ews.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.

Sable sulks...

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.

ie anecdotal garbage - there is no evidence to support any of your
whacky theories. you never change do you Sarah.

--
The Wit and Wisdom of Mort Davis:


On his sexual habits:
"Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina"

On American children rummaging through rubbish for food:
"True, ythey gewt the inbrads in Parliment to do it"

His neo-con solution for world peace:
"When Europe ****s itsself again, I suggest we drop nukes on it until no
human life remains."

Displaying that he's yet another lamer with a sticky
Caps Lock key who believes that anyone cares about the
contents of his killfile:
"Keep changing those fake idents, I have plenty more room in the old
killfile, ****TARD."

" 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.

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 06:50:13 +0100 (CET), in a fit of unbridled digital
verbosity, once again proving the problem is located between the seat and the
keyboard, Nomen Nescio ] two-fingered
to all:

|-----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.

That's not what my sources say. Where'd you hear this?

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.

If that's the "reasoning", it will also go through on a clean shot and damage
the airliner or an innocent passenger, something that is entirely contrary to
the mission.


jammin1-at-jammin1-dot-com

jammin1's Resources
www.jammin1.com