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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (166347)	5/13/2006 6:23:04 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 794388

Some hijackers may simply want to go to Cuba, or wherever. When hijackers want to be delivered somewhere, they say so. The pilots should know whether they're dealing with a hijacker or a terrorist. If it's a regular Cuba-type hijacking, the pilots would likely announce the destination. It would be better to land in Cuba than down the plane in an effort to retake it.

To: LindyBill who wrote (166347)	5/14/2006 3:28:22 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 794388

I don't think it's reasonable to assume that all hijackers are 9/11 redux. <<I think you would be nuts to assume anything else. If you don't take the hijacker down and you are wrong, you die.>> No matter what the case, whether or not the passengers react, an impenetrable cockpit is the answer. If you can't get to the controls, you can't fly the plane. Me, if I was in a plane that was being taken over I'd wait a bit and see if there was a marshal on board who'd ventilate the bastards. About 20 years ago, the NRA did an article on some ammo tests that would kill hijackers without tearing a bunch of holes in the plane.