On 11 Sep 2001, at 21:59, Normen Nomesco wrote:

Then how come 84 unarmed people could not take aproximatly 4 people armed with razor blades. Agh, I see it, they didn't have guns. Shit 10 kids could probably rush and take an adult armed with a knife, if they rushed him. At least one terrorist was flying, so what thats 84 people against 3 armed with exacto razor blades?

Probably because the passengers and crew never thought they were in any serious danger as historically there has been no similar suicide hijackings in the US. No one knew with certainty they were going to die. If they knew they were going to die they may have fought back. My guess would be if a similar attack was tried next week the passengers would fight back as they don't have much to lose. But then, we are trained by our government and law enforcement not to take matters into our own hands as only the proper authorities can act appropriately. Listening to the news reports it has been noted many times there was a failure in intelligence gatherings and more resources, read more money and less personal freedom, will be required to counter such threats in the future. It was also mentioned that a simple terrorist group would be incapable of mounting such an attack. There is no reason a group could not organize such a project with a week's notice once you know airport security is going to let you pass with pocket knifes and cardboard box cutters. Bully the stewardess, break down the door to the cockpit, get the pilot to turn around and point the aircraft in the right direction, once you see your destination chase the flight crew away (craft would not be on autopilot) and steer the craft to the target. The plane targeting the Pentagon apparently hit the ground before hitting the structure, almost a failure to achieve its target. The aircraft crashing in PA totally missed its target. I don't see where only a terrorist group backed by the resources of a national government could pull this off. A week or two for planning and a group of people who can keep their mouth's shut plus the most important quality, big gonads and a desire to die for a perceived purpose. My guess would be that the final analysis will show these terrorists were more lucky then skilful. They were lucky to get past airport security, or airport security was that bad (what do you expect when you use near minimum wage labor with no leadership, vision or goals), they were lucky the passengers never fought back, they were lucky the weather allowed great visibility, they were lucky the cockpit is not secure and they were pretty lucky in hitting their targets. Unfortunately the American people are the unlucky ones, paying the price in pain and suffering, increased taxation and the probable loss of freedom the government solution will entail. I don't know if having a plane load of armed angry drunks crammed into inadequate seating with surly cabin staff is a viable solution. Having a citizenry which is willing to question authority and willing to act accordingly in crisis situations would help but would probably offend the powers that be.

I'd still fucking rush them if I had been there. If anything it would wake everyone else up to do the same. ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Normen Nomesco wrote:

...

I'm 100% positive that a single armed terrorist with the best training in the world would perish within seconds at the hands of 50+ such businessmen before taking out more than several victims. To understand this, you must think as they did.

Then how come 84 unarmed people could not take aproximatly 4 people armed with razor blades. Agh, I see it, they didn't have guns. Shit 10 kids could probably rush and take an adult armed with a knife, if they rushed him. At least one terrorist was flying, so what thats 84 people against 3 armed with exacto razor blades?

Bullshit, they had knives and sharp instruments. No matter how well

...

trained a killer is, he is no match for odds like 120 to 4 against.

How about odds of 20 to 1 with the one having a knife....

---

Harmon Seaver wrote:

"Raymond D. Mereniuk" wrote:

...

I don't see where only a terrorist group backed by the resources of a national government could pull this off. A week or two for planning and a group of people who can keep their mouth's shut plus the most important quality, big gonads and a desire to die for a perceived purpose.

So right -- all these people talking about "it had to be a big, well funded, well organized group with lots of resources" are talking total nonsense. It could have been a tiny cadre of eight or twelve people with no more money than to buy some plane tickets. Flying a plane doesn't take a heck of lot either, once it's in the air.

A friend of mine wonders if they had a Boeing flight simulator. Apparently they would need to know how to disable the autopilot and do a couple of other technobabble things a groundling like me doesn't recognise. But with access to a training simulator they could learn enough in a few days. Or so I am told. I suppose such machines are all over the place these days, Boeing having more or less a monopoly on medium-large commercial passenger planes. So there could be training facilities just about anywhere. I have no real idea how rare and/or expensive they would be. Ken

At 11:27 PM 9/11/01 -0700, Raymond D. Mereniuk wrote:

I don't know if having a plane load of armed angry drunks crammed into inadequate seating with surly cabin staff is a viable solution.

Armed folks shouldn't drink, drunk folks ought not to touch their arms. If the hijackers were drunk, they probably wouldn't have succeeded.