Would a gun on the planes have made a difference on 9/11?

[Jack Burton]

I don't understand. Bomb or no bomb, you would just sit there and wait and do nothing?
Just see what happens?

Yep. To quote from the essay...

I sit and wait. And wait some more if necessary. And wait until circumstances either FORCE me to act, or have significantly shifted towards my success. But those circumstances have to be WORSE than a bomb going off in mid-air, dropping 200 innocents to the ground.

If it was just ME in the plane? If it was just the cop in the library? Yes, that would make a significant difference. But can I take that risk for 200 other people? Do I dare make an attempt when I KNOW that even if I don't it will probably come out okay in the long run, and that if I am wrong about it I have condemned 200 innocents to die because I can't keep my gun in my pants.

There's nothing wrong with the desire to "do something." But having the courage, the fortitude, the ability to "not do something" is just as important.

 

[Hammerhead]

Then you didn't read the rest of my posts. I clearly state that there is a specific time to consider when to act. You have to decide when that line gets crossed for you.

There is no reason, in my mind, go give in to evil people to allow their evil plots to continue. Whether this be a person mugging me on the ground, or a-holes on a plane "with a bomb."

Your comparison still holds no water. I don't have to have light from a lighter during a fuel spill. I can leave. I can pull my flashlight (yes, I carry one everywhere). I can do any number of things to not set off a flash fire from a fuel spill. I could simply stand there and let the fuel spill happen in the dark. I'm not in a position where action is required or necessary.

If a group of a-holes is going to do me or those around me harm, I will fight back. This is a completely separate and incomparable set of circumstances.

I don't have to do anything about a fuel spill. I don't have to do anything during a hijacking. I would do more during a hijacking than I would during a fuel spill. That doesn't make me reckless, dangerous or irresponsible. It makes me someone willing to act when the circumstances are at a certain level that I choose. A fuel spill isn't specifically going to do me harm.

Hijackers aren't going to either without a fight.

Either you're not understanding, or you're intentionally being dense. I can't tell.

ETA: Or, because something somewhere says you shouldn't act, you wont, and others shouldn't.

 

[Jack Burton]

I don't understand. Bomb or no bomb, you would just sit there and wait and do nothing?
Just see what happens?

You ever hunt from a stand? A hunter can go into the woods, shooting at every passing shadow and blasting away at things he thinks he sees. But he probably won't come home with a deer.

Sitting in a stand requires patience... sitting still for perhaps hours on hand. Not doing a darn thing but sitting, wait for the "right moment" for the prey. Shooting vermin such as feral hogs and coyotes often use the same techniques.

My guess is they are more successful than the hunters who feel they have to shoot at something every two to three minutes or they are somehow less of a man.

 

[Jack Burton]

Then you didn't read the rest of my posts. I clearly state that there is a specific time to consider when to act. You have to decide when that line gets crossed for you.

There is no reason, in my mind, go give in to evil people to allow their evil plots to continue. Whether this be a person mugging me on the ground, or a-holes on a plane "with a bomb."

Your comparison still holds no water. I don't have to have light from a lighter during a fuel spill. I can leave. I can pull my flashlight (yes, I carry one everywhere). I can do any number of things to not set off a flash fire from a fuel spill. I could simply stand there and let the fuel spill happen in the dark. I'm not in a position where action is required or necessary.

If a group of a-holes is going to do me or those around me harm, I will fight back. This is a completely separate and incomparable set of circumstances.

I don't have to do anything about a fuel spill. I don't have to do anything during a hijacking. I would do more during a hijacking than I would during a fuel spill. That doesn't make me reckless, dangerous or irresponsible. It makes me someone willing to act when the circumstances are at a certain level that I choose. A fuel spill isn't specifically going to do me harm.

Hijackers aren't going to either without a fight.

Either you're not understanding, or you're intentionally being dense. I can't tell.

ETA: Or, because something somewhere says you shouldn't act, you wont, and others shouldn't.

Yes, you said you would "pick a time". Actually, what you said was "Yes, you should pick exactly when you should fight back. Why allow the hijackers to land the plane? Why allow hijackers to remain in control? Why should a plane full of 40, or 200 be afraid of a few? Bomb or no bomb, boxcutters or guns, are we really so afraid for ourselves that we'll willingly allow bad things to happen in the off chance that we get out "hungry, humiliated, tired or beaten" at the worst?"

And every single one of your "picks" and "choses" will lead to the death of several hundred innocent people when the bomb that you so blithely ignore goes off in mid-air.

I don't know if you are personally "reckless, dangerous or irresponsible." But I do know that your tactically decision making is fundamentally flawed if you think that shooting someone with a bomb at 35,000 feet because you don't want to be "hungry, humiliated, tired or beaten" is going to make the situation much better.

And there is no reason to think that if you can't think this through to the logical conclusion that you similarly cannot think that lighting a match next to spilled gasoline is also a bad idea. It's not about gasoline. Or matches. It is about your ability to make good or bad decisions based upon available information. Info that you willingly ignore -- "bomb or no bomb".

"Gas or no gas, I want a cigarette."

 

[Hammerhead]

Obviously your essay is going to be your opinion of how you would act.

You seem to think that you'll learn the plans of the hijackers before it becomes too late to act. So you'll wait and watch. I don't think, for all your waiting and watching and "hunting" that the hijackers are going to tell you their real plans.

Lets look at two timelines.

One, the plane is hijacked and the a-holes get control. They threaten violence e.g. a bomb, and people do nothing out of fear. The plane continues to fly, the a-holes keep telling people "we're going to land, you won't be harmed unless it's necessary, blah blah blah." They lie and fly the plane into a building before anyone realizes they should act. 9/11 happens.

Two, hijackers attempt to take the plane, people have two options: fight back, wait and fight back. Lets say people wait to act until "the time is right" the a-holes stick to the first scenario and keep lying. When do you act? Or do you act first, when the first show of force happens and you can act to stop it before it finalizes? They don't get to say they have a bomb, they don't get to threaten to hold hostages, they don't get to do anything after the initial show of force.

I vote for not waiting to see what happens. In those initial moments where you see it hitting the fan, the only thing going to make things better is a violent and quick counter-attack.

I'm saying it doesn't matter what their "plans" are, I'm going to do everything in my power to disrupt them. There's no guarantee that you'll make it out alive from any scenario, unless you act to do so. I'd rather go down swinging.

 

[Hammerhead]

200 people dying is better than 3000+. I'm not so callous to say that it's not still a tragedy, but fewer lives lost is always better than more lives lost.

 

[Jack Burton]

Obviously your essay is going to be your opinion of how you would act.

You seem to think that you'll learn the plans of the hijackers before it becomes too late to act. So you'll wait and watch. I don't think, for all your waiting and watching and "hunting" that the hijackers are going to tell you their real plans.

Lets look at two timelines.

One, the plane is hijacked and the a-holes get control. They threaten violence e.g. a bomb, and people do nothing out of fear. The plane continues to fly, the a-holes keep telling people "we're going to land, you won't be harmed unless it's necessary, blah blah blah." They lie and fly the plane into a building before anyone realizes they should act. 9/11 happens.

Two, hijackers attempt to take the plane, people have two options: fight back, wait and fight back. Lets say people wait to act until "the time is right" the a-holes stick to the first scenario and keep lying. When do you act? Or do you act first, when the first show of force happens and you can act to stop it before it finalizes? They don't get to say they have a bomb, they don't get to threaten to hold hostages, they don't get to do anything after the initial show of force.

I vote for not waiting to see what happens. In those initial moments where you see it hitting the fan, the only thing going to make things better is a violent and quick counter-attack.

I'm saying it doesn't matter what their "plans" are, I'm going to do everything in my power to disrupt them. There's no guarantee that you'll make it out alive from any scenario, unless you act to do so. I'd rather go down swinging.

Nice thoughts but let me quote again from the essay...

"If any of us were on those planes we cannot view this event through post-9/11 eyes and wisdom. We can only view it through past experience prior to 9/11."

Your whole post was viewing the events from after the fact. You simply cannot acknowledge that most hijackings ended with the planes safe on the ground, can you. You continually state your willingness to allow 200 innocents to fall to their death just because you feel compelled to "do something."

 

[Jack Burton]

200 people dying is better than 3000+. I'm not so callous to say that it's not still a tragedy, but fewer lives lost is always better than more lives lost.

Ummmmm.... just when did you know that those 3,000 people were going to die instead of the plane landing safely on the ground. Oh... of course... after it happened.

 

[lovemachine]

You can look at it both ways. You just sit there and wait to see what happens. Then you realize you waited too long and you and 200 people are dead. And that could have been prevented if you had acted earlier.

The early bird gets the worm

 

[Jack Burton]

You can look at it both ways. You just sit there and wait to see what happens. Then you realize you waited too long and you and 200 people are dead. And that could have been prevented if you had acted earlier.

The early bird gets the worm

And you know this how? Oh... by looking at it through post 9/11 eyes. Yes... I admit and have no problem admitting that under my view of the hijackings the WTC and the Pentagon would have suffered the same fate. But that is after the fact knowledge that I would have had no idea existed at that time.

 

[Hammerhead]

No. Honestly I had a lot of understanding prior to 9/11 that terrorists don't follow the rules. And I'm not arguing my idea of acting because of 9/11.

I'm saying that in any situation, pre or post 9/11, the inclination to act and ability to defend oneself and others should have been/should be the idea no matter what.

Who cares that every pre-9/11 hijacking was a "land the plane -> demand stuff -> free hostages" scenario? Why should you, in any situation, be so complacent that you "wait to see how it unfolds" before acting? What rules are terrorists following? It was never certain that they were going to follow a script. They didn't have a script, or at least they didn't hand it to the other side and say "here's what we're going to do, you follow along, ok?"

There were no rules, there are no rules.

Saying that pre-9/11 that every hijacking went the same way is a lie. They were done differently prior to the "land the plane, etc." scenario. Then someone started that trend. Then it was a different trend. Next, it'll be something else. These evil people sit around and think up new dastardly ways to inflict pain and suffering. Train bombings. Boat bombings. Trucks full of explosives into embassies.

When you start thinking that they're going to follow the same M.O., they change it.

You wrote your essay post-9/11, right? Were you studying counter-terrorism in the late 90s? I was. Not to some huge extent where I can say I'm an expert, nor have I worked in the field. But I did study it because I was training to react to disaster situations. I had to know at least a little about it because I was doing search and rescue work. The OK City bombing, the '93 WTC bombing, natural disasters, airplane crashes, I studied all and more because I never knew what would happen next.

Even at that point, the prevailing ideology was to let them hijack and then fix the problem. Unfortunately, there were those who were also saying that this will only last for so long, then they're going to do something completely different and you won't be prepared for it. Don't assume that they'll always follow the same rules, because they don't have any.

Your essay also comes from the perspective of one man. One man not able to stop five terrorists. One man acting alone. However, my statement wasn't about one man being armed. It was about every man, woman and child having the option to defend themselves. I don't know if one man could act. But if there were no restrictions on carrying of firearms by passengers, do you really believe only one man would have been armed?

No, I don't think every man, woman or child on a plane on 9/11 would have been armed had they had the option. I believe that enough people could have been to rise up and stop it before it became the disaster we know. I believe that had carry been allowed on planes by honest citizens, it would have deterred anyone from attempting to do very bad things because it would be risky, for the exact same reasons criminals don't like to target people who can defend themselves, so they'll go after softer targets.

The wait and see approach didn't do a damn bit of good, at least to those lost in the first three planes. And like I said, the fourth plane didn't do it's job, because the people fought back.

The USAF Pararescue Jumpers creed is "That Others May Live". I am not, nor have I ever been a USAF PJ. The reason I did/do SAR work was the same reason, so that others may live. That creed is the also same idea that Flt 93 latched on to. They fought back and gave their lives that no other people would die. That's also why I would fight back.

The reason I said "bomb or no bomb" is because I can't predict what terrorist a-holes will do, but I can control what I do. I can't believe that a terrorist a-hole will tell me the truth. They are a bad guy and must be stopped. Period.

 

[Jack Burton]

They are a bad guy and must be stopped. Period.

You forgot to include the rest of your sentence... "...at the expense of 200 innocent lives aboard the plane."

 

[fahappy]

It's really easy to sit back and say (ten years later) that I would have jumped into action armed or not. You are right, the rules of hijacking were changed on September 11. The people that died on flight 93 have always been my true heroes of that day.

Well spoken sir. I have always felt the exact same way about the passengers of fight 93

 

[Hammerhead]

They are a bad guy and must be stopped. Period.

You forgot to include the rest of your sentence... "...at the expense of 200 innocent lives aboard the plane."

One more time with feeling:

Your essay also comes from the perspective of one man. One man not able to stop five terrorists. One man acting alone. However, my statement wasn't about one man being armed. It was about every man, woman and child having the option to defend themselves. I don't know if one man could act. But if there were no restrictions on carrying of firearms by passengers, do you really believe only one man would have been armed?

ETA: That 200 number you keep throwing out isn't the average size of an aircraft, first off. Secondly, Flt 93 showed, as I've said a couple of times now, that others would act too. I bet those that didn't actively fight were still willing to sacrifice their lives even though they didn't fight. I'm sure they were cheering the others on.