Talk-Polywell.org

alexjrgreen wrote:

TallDave wrote:I think you'd be surprised at the effectiveness of untrained American males. Most of us have some informal training in applied group violence, even if it's just football or hockey.

We're a pack, not a herd.

If you've been to a good school, sure. The rest of the population aren't as well prepared.

LOL, as bad as government schools are in the US, one thing they seem to be capable of achieving excellence at is team sports. I'll note that coaches positions are typically not unionized..... hint hint

IntLibber wrote:New Hampshire

IntLibber wrote:Second Life

Should I infer "Brautigan", or am I hallucinating?

alexjrgreen wrote:People in the other planes that day just sat there and let the highjackers get on with it.

There was no precidence for planes being used as missiles before 911. The passengers on Flight 93 had knowledge of the prior planes being flown into buildings that day though cell phone calls. Unfortunately, the people on the other planes didn't have the same prior knowledge. They were the prior knowledge. If they had known, I am sure they would have fought back. I suggest that we don't need to tear them down to build up the heroic passengers of 93.

regards

seedload wrote:Unfortunately, the people on the other planes didn't have the same prior knowledge. They were the prior knowledge. If they had known, I am sure they would have fought back. I suggest that we don't need to tear them down to build up the heroic passengers of 93.

Every time a bank gets robbed, people stand around and let it happen.

Saying that the people in the other planes behaved like the rest of the population isn't tearing them down. That's why the passengers of Flight 93 were such a humbling example.

alexjrgreen wrote:

seedload wrote:Unfortunately, the people on the other planes didn't have the same prior knowledge. They were the prior knowledge. If they had known, I am sure they would have fought back. I suggest that we don't need to tear them down to build up the heroic passengers of 93.

Every time a bank gets robbed, people stand around and let it happen.

Saying that the people in the other planes behaved like the rest of the population isn't tearing them down. That's why the passengers of Flight 93 were such a humbling example.

People watch banks get robbed because their deposits are insured. No point risking your life for an insured deposit. Hijackers threaten passengers lives, not their money. What was unique however about 9/11 was the point of the hijacking. Historically hijackers were after either money, release of political prisoners, or escape to outlaw jurisdictions with no extradition.

Note: There had never been a successful hijacking in the US until the FAA banned passengers from flying armed. Airplanes are much softer targets than banks.

IntLibber wrote:Note: There had never been a successful hijacking in the US until the FAA banned passengers from flying armed. Airplanes are much softer targets than banks.

Fascinating data point. Could you cite a reference I could share with skeptics?

alexjrgreen wrote:

seedload wrote:Unfortunately, the people on the other planes didn't have the same prior knowledge. They were the prior knowledge. If they had known, I am sure they would have fought back. I suggest that we don't need to tear them down to build up the heroic passengers of 93.

Every time a bank gets robbed, people stand around and let it happen.

Saying that the people in the other planes behaved like the rest of the population isn't tearing them down. That's why the passengers of Flight 93 were such a humbling example.

The passengers on 93 knew they were going to die and acted accordingly. The passengers on the 'other' flights didn't know they were going to die and acted accordingly. People seeing a bank robbery don't even think they are going to die and they act accordingly.

Nothing about the latter two examples takes away from or adds to the bravery of those in the first.

Apples and Oranges.

hanelyp wrote:

IntLibber wrote:Note: There had never been a successful hijacking in the US until the FAA banned passengers from flying armed. Airplanes are much softer targets than banks.

Fascinating data point. Could you cite a reference I could share with skeptics?

Carried firearms were banned on planes in the US in 1958. Screening was implemented in 1973.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_59576754

The first hijacking in the US did not happen until 1961, three years after carrying firearms was banned.

This PPT: http://www.bibalex.org/Supercourse/Supe ... 1/4811.ppt

Has a slide number 18 I believe, that charts global hijackings since 1948.

Making airliners gun-free-zones has made them prone to hijackings, necessitating the imposition of ever more tyriannical fascist security measures to seek to prevent hijackings yet never attaining the level of safety that existed when anybody could carry a gun on a plane.

Sheesh. Don't ya think there are a bunch of other variables in play?

Hijacks not only coincide with the gun ban, they coincide with the increased frequency of Screaming infants on airplanes. Should we blame them too? Perhaps we should.

So far no International financiers, bankers, high level diplomats, captains of Industry or other folks on fruitful business hijacked any airplanes despite the gun ban. I wonder why not? They didn't do it in the 50's either, I guess. They're the ones who flew back then. Flying used to be expensive and uncommon. Folks stood out.

I remember an "All in the Family" where Archie's solution to Hijackings was indeed to"Arm all your Passengers". Sheesh.

Helius wrote:Sheesh. Don't ya think there are a bunch of other variables in play?

Hijacks not only coincide with the gun ban, they coincide with the increased frequency of Screaming infants on airplanes. Should we blame them too? Perhaps we should.

So far no International financiers, bankers, high level diplomats, captains of Industry or other folks on fruitful business hijacked any airplanes despite the gun ban. I wonder why not? They didn't do it in the 50's either, I guess. They're the ones who flew back then. Flying used to be expensive and uncommon. Folks stood out.

I remember an "All in the Family" where Archie's solution to Hijackings was indeed to"Arm all your Passengers". Sheesh.

As I happen to live in a state with a lower overall crime rate, murder rate, and property crime rate less than switzerland, a state where carrying a pistol publicly without a permit is legal and ownership of machine guns is also legal, I live daily in a society where Archie is exactly correct.

Where do you live again?

I rather doubt anyone made a cell call from any airplane in 2001.

Roger wrote:I rather doubt anyone made a cell call from any airplane in 2001.

If you read the accounts of 9/11 cell phones were used. And they worked.