DAST Chat

2011-09-11 19:38:27

#3401

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5858

Spark wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
An airline should be prepared to have a terrorist attempt to take control of the cockpit and have safety standards in place to prevent that from happening. It's as simple as that.
Okay, Mr. expert. Got some safety preacuations the airlines could have taken that would have prevented the 9/11 attacks?

Locks on doors? Really? What would have prevented the hijackers from waiting for there to be some reason for a stewardess to go into the cockpit before making their move?

Or what if the doors remained locked the whole flight and the hijackers decided to execute passengers or stewardesses until the pilots opened the door? There wasn't an precedent at that time for people to be using planes as missiles. The airline pilots wouldn't have had thought the hijackers were going to crash the planes but instead just force them to land somewhere like every other hijacking in history before 9/11.

So yeah, the 9/11 families needed some money and found the only target to be found were the airliners.
Even the old trick - we have a bomb, let us fly the plane or we blow us all out of the sky. Not much choice then, eh?

Of course. On flight United 93, the one the went down in PA, the passengers that were in contact with their families mentioned that the hijacker that was running crowd control had a box that had wires coming out of it and claimed for it to be a bomb. Worse comes to worse, for the hijackers, they could have used that to threaten their way into the cockpit.

Hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it?

Last edited by Macbeth (2011-09-11 19:38:48)

2011-09-11 19:39:02

#3402

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6873|132 and Bush

Agree with it or not, this was the logic.

The plaintiffs argued that the airlines had been negligent in failing to carry out the proper security checks that might have prevented the hijackings.

Boeing, it was said, should have designed a cockpit door that hijackers could not break into.

The airlines had contended that they should not be held liable because the unprecedented attacks were unforeseeable and that they had followed safety measures demanded by federal laws.

Mr Hellerstein disagreed. "The intrusion by terrorists into the cockpit, coupled with the volatility of a hijacking situation, creates a foreseeable risk that hijacked airplanes might crash, jeopardising innocent lives on the ground as well as in the airplane," he said.

It does seem like an awful lot of hindsight though.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-09-11 20:11:30

#3403

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6425|what

Macbeth wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
An airline should be prepared to have a terrorist attempt to take control of the cockpit and have safety standards in place to prevent that from happening. It's as simple as that.
Okay, Mr. expert. Got some safety preacuations the airlines could have taken that would have prevented the 9/11 attacks?

Locks on doors? Really? What would have prevented the hijackers from waiting for there to be some reason for a stewardess to go into the cockpit before making their move?

Or what if the doors remained locked the whole flight and the hijackers decided to execute passengers or stewardesses until the pilots opened the door? There wasn't an precedent at that time for people to be using planes as missiles. The airline pilots wouldn't have had thought the hijackers were going to crash the planes but instead just force them to land somewhere like every other hijacking in history before 9/11.

So yeah, the 9/11 families needed some money and found the only target to be found were the airliners.

Executing passengers should be no reason to open a cockpit door, regardless of precedent - that should be pretty much common sense.

You can throw up a million what ifs. It doesn't change the fact that the airline could have better trained crews. Where were the security officers? Why didn't they prevent the terrorists from taking over the cockpit?

In the end the airline failed to keep the passengers safe. So they should be accountable in those deaths which were avoidable.

2011-09-11 20:15:11

#3404

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6770

AussieReaper wrote:
Executing passengers should be no reason to open a cockpit door, regardless of precedent

it's a price you pay - flying is a luxury, not a goddanned right. if you can fly natururally, jump off a cliff and save yourself the goddam hassle.

kthxbai.

2011-09-11 20:16:13

#3405

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6873|132 and Bush

AussieReaper wrote:
Executing passengers should be no reason to open a cockpit door, regardless of precedent - that should be pretty much common sense.

Honestly, that sounds like something easily said behind a keyboard, ten years later. I wonder how many people you've listened to get murdered because you refused to do something.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-09-11 20:21:32

#3406

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6770

Kmar wrote:
I wonder how many people you've listened to get murdered because you refused to do something.

life's hard, not fair. i've not heard one get murdered, because of something. but i can tell you, better a hundred get stabbed by a boxcutter than one give up a pilot seat.

if you don't have the stomach for that, hey it's cool - don't be a pilot.

2011-09-11 20:23:09

#3407

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6873|132 and Bush

13urnzz wrote:
Kmar wrote:
I wonder how many people you've listened to get murdered because you refused to do something.
life's hard, not fair. i've not heard one get murdered, because of something. but i can tell you, better a hundred get stabbed by a boxcutter than one give up a pilot seat.

if you don't have the stomach for that, hey it's cool - don't be a pilot.

The idea that precedent doesn't matter is ridiculous. Those pilots were trained to comply based on other successful negotiations.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-09-11 20:28:40

#3408

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5858

Executing passengers should be no reason to open a cockpit door, regardless of precedent - that should be pretty much common sense.

And as Spark pointed out the "open or I'll blow the whole thing" completely nullifies that idea. Again there was no precedent for using the planes as weapons. Now that people know the planes would be used as weapons they won't open the door no matter what because of what happened 10 year ago. Until then most hijackers would just ask to fly and land somewhere while negotiations to have a peaceful resolution would be worked out.

As for the security teams aspect of it- on the first plane that went into the WTC, the crew was in touch with ground control after the hijacking. They were relaying information about the hijacking up until it went into the tower. From what we know about the attack there was a former Israeli commando on the flight. He was the first person killed as hijackers made their move into the cockpit. He was stabbed to death in his seat. You would have needed 3-5 guys on each flight for a security team to have made difference. That's just not feasible. The precedent for using planes as weapons wasn't there. Cooperating so no one gets hurt or killed was SOP. Before that just working with the terrorist and writing off the losses was always better than having someone play hero and get every killed on the flight. That's how airliners saw things up until 9/11. (It's the same way with banks and a bunch of other organizations)

You're being incredibly naive.

2011-09-11 20:29:59

#3409

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6770

Kmar wrote:
13urnzz wrote:
Kmar wrote:
I wonder how many people you've listened to get murdered because you refused to do something.
life's hard, not fair. i've not heard one get murdered, because of something. but i can tell you, better a hundred get stabbed by a boxcutter than one give up a pilot seat.

if you don't have the stomach for that, hey it's cool - don't be a pilot.
The idea that precedent doesn't matter is ridiculous. Those pilots were trained to comply based on other successful negotiations.

you*re right - the 9|11 report said the failure was a lack of imagination. who knew terrorists would use planes as manned missles?

here's a thought - 9|11 ushered in a new melllenium, and who knew? those that fight terrrorism would have to use their heads, or common sense?

if a terrorist wants the pilot seat, fuck him. if we don't adopt that strategy, they win/we lose. it's not hard t figure out, let's lock the cabin door, and get back to the rape of American treasure, shall we?

2011-09-11 20:31:51

#3410

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6873|132 and Bush

btw, we are still not entirely sure as to how it went down. Those cockpit doors were not reinforced pre-911 were they?

The Commission says, “We do not know exactly how the hijackers gained access to the cockpit; FAA rules required that the doors remain closed and locked during flight.… Perhaps the terrorists stabbed the flight attendants to get a cockpit key, to force one of them to open the cockpit door, or to lure the captain or first officer out of the cockpit. Or the flight attendants may just have been in their way.” [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 5] Pilots are trained to handle hijackings by staying calm, complying with any requests, and, if possible, dialing an emergency four-digit code on their plane’s transponder. It only takes a few seconds to dial this code. [CNN, 9/12/2001] Yet, as the Boston Globe notes, “It appears that the hijackers’ entry was surprising enough that the pilots did not have a chance to broadcast a traditional distress call” (see (8:13 a.m.-9:28 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [Boston Globe, 11/23/2001] The Los Angeles Times reports that, when flight attendant Amy Sweeney makes a phone call from the plane, she says the hijackers have “just gained access to the cockpit.” [Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001] Yet her first attempted call is not until 8:22, and, according to official accounts, her first call that stays connected is at 8:25, well past when the 9/11 Commission says the hijacker takeover occurs.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline. … 1_timeline

Without a distress call it makes me think that the takeover was abrupt, and not a conscious decision to relinquish control of the aircraft. (In flight 11's case)

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-09-11 20:42:57

#3411

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6947|Canberra, AUS

13urnzz wrote:
Kmar wrote:
13urnzz wrote:
life's hard, not fair. i've not heard one get murdered, because of something. but i can tell you, better a hundred get stabbed by a boxcutter than one give up a pilot seat.

if you don't have the stomach for that, hey it's cool - don't be a pilot.
The idea that precedent doesn't matter is ridiculous. Those pilots were trained to comply based on other successful negotiations.
you*re right - the 9|11 report said the failure was a lack of imagination. who knew terrorists would use planes as manned missles?

here's a thought - 9|11 ushered in a new melllenium, and who knew? those that fight terrrorism would have to use their heads, or common sense?

if a terrorist wants the pilot seat, fuck him. if we don't adopt that strategy, they win/we lose. it's not hard t figure out, let's lock the cabin door, and get back to the rape of American treasure, shall we?

And if he threatens to blow up the plane? The pilot has then risked failing his most basic duty in the most severe manner.

Last edited by Spark (2011-09-11 20:43:15)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-09-11 20:49:54

#3412

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6873|132 and Bush

Actually, now that i think about it. I remember on at least one of the hijackings they said they had a bomb.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

9/11 commision report wrote:
The hijackers quickly gained control and sprayed Mace, pepper spray, or some other irritant in the first-class cabin, in order to force the passengers and flight attendants toward the rear of the plane. They claimed they had a bomb.

About five minutes after the hijacking began, Betty Ong contacted the American Airlines Southeastern Reservations Office in Cary, North Carolina, via an AT&T airphone to report an emergency aboard the flight. This was the first of several occasions on 9/11 when flight attendants took action outside the scope of their training, which emphasized that in a hijacking, they were to communicate with the cockpit crew. The emergency call lasted approximately 25 minutes, as Ong calmly and professionally relayed information about events taking place aboard the airplane to authorities on the ground.29

At 8:19, Ong reported: "The cockpit is not answering, somebody's stabbed in business class-and I think there's Mace-that we can't breathe-I don't know, I think we're getting hijacked." She then told of the stabbings of the two flight attendants.30

.....

Sweeney calmly reported on her line that the plane had been hijacked; a man in first class had his throat slashed; two flight attendants had been stabbed-one was seriously hurt and was on oxygen while the other's wounds seemed minor; a doctor had been requested; the flight attendants were unable to contact the cockpit; and there was a bomb in the cockpit. Sweeney told Woodward that she and Ong were trying to relay as much information as they could to people on the ground.34

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-09-11 23:39:57

#3413

Beduin: Compensation of Reactive Power in the grid; +510|6023|شمال

FEOS wrote:
Beduin wrote:
FEOS wrote:
$1.65T in direct war costs for both Iraq and Afghanistan.
including disability pensions for wounded soldiers?
Notice use of the word "direct."

so the price of this war is more than 1.6T. It deoends on what/how you count.

الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic

2011-09-12 01:04:28

#3414

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,816|6379|eXtreme to the maX

Didn't the defence spend, excluding the cost of the war, also rise by ~$200bn a year?
Thats another $1Tn or two right there.

Fuck Israel

2011-09-12 04:54:14

#3415

Cheeky_Ninja06: Member; +52|7005|Cambridge, England

'Leak risk after explosion at French nuclear plant'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14883521

2011-09-12 05:04:47

#3416

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6947|Canberra, AUS

wonderful. good job, frenchies.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-09-12 07:52:52

#3417

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6684|'Murka

13urnzz wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Contractors do not outnumber our troops.
In Iraq, they do.

That's not what you said.

Since the mission in Iraq is primarily non-combat at this point, doesn't that make sense?

13urnzz wrote:
FEOS wrote:
And Obama spent roughly 4x that much in his first 2.5 years in office.
Obama started accounting for the war effort, which previous administrations didn't do, in the general outlay.

Still doesn't account for the massive increase in spending. And the war spending was accounted for in the previous administration, as well. How do you think they know how much was spent?

13urnzz wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Compared to ten years to do the same in war spending. And you still think the problem is war spending?
No, i think the problem is spending.

i don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut if it's war spending, massive non-defense discretionary spending, a so-called drop in the bucket foreign aid spending, or even Bush authorized TARP spending - this is not a Democrat v. Republican, con v. lib, my sides-better-than-your-sides issue.

the so called "Republicans" have done no better than the so called "Democrats" when it's come to pissing this countrys' assets away.

don't give me no partisan bullshit when addressing the flight of wealth, I DON"T FUCKING CARE IF YOU*RE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT - if you defend the spending of anything in Washington DC you are just defending your flavor of stupidity.

BOTH PARTIES ARE PARTY TO THE RAPE OF AMERICA, REPUBLICANS AS WELL AS DEMOCRATS.

Glad you found your caps lock key.

TARP was paid back, with interest. "Stimulus II" was not, which added hundreds of billions to the debt (TARP did not).

The reason people point out "drop in the bucket" programs when people start focusing on them, is that you could cut those programs down to nothing and still have no appreciable impact on either the deficit or our long-term debt. The only way to fix our deficit and debt problem is to reform entitlements--which make up 2/3 of our budget, and whose outlays are determined by law, not yearly discretion of the Executive branch.

The only time partisanship comes into play on the issue is when someone brings it up. Otherwise, no problem.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-09-12 14:56:13

#3418

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5974|College Park, MD

Y'know, if I could vote, I wouldn't vote for Obama simply because he failed at health care reform.

My mom lost her insurance coverage when she moved to DC, and her new insurer won't start covering her for six months since she has a pre-existing condition. And now she's been having shoulder pain and wants to get it checked out but it's gonna cost a ton of money.

So yeah, thanks for nothin' Bammers (and Congress).