Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : INTEL TRADER -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gersh Avery who wrote (10447)	9/24/2001 7:00:49 AM
From: Jurgen Trautmann	Respond to of 11051

Nice idea for improving the psychology of passengers that shortly after the attentat. But in a real situation such a behavior is the final end of all. Did you seen a reconstruction of the hijacking of a Lufthansa-flight in the 70's ending in Mogadishu? They made a lot of landings before, on flight-attendent was shot down, but finally GSG9 could storm the plane, kill the hijackers and no further person had to die. It's common police-strategy in cases of hijacking to search "endless" talks, negotiations, delays because chances are getting better the later the "shut down" starts. We should not forget that this twintower-attack was not the rule - in most cases of hijacking passengers could leave the plane sooner of later free - because they'd acted careful and responsible. In case of Mogadishu the gov't did not agree to do what hijackers were demanding, but in a lot of cases these nice guys just wanted to redirect the flight - no good reason to die for. If one is sure that a selfmurder commando has taken over the plane an "all or nothing" strategy may make sense - but not as a general rule. There's a whole sector of science called game-theory, Gersh: The rule is that conflict strategies are less successful, independent even from earlier bad experiences. Jury