What Americans Should Carry On Airplanes

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by SEABEE, Feb 29, 2008.

  1. Woah there, don't change the statement. He said that 3 people were no match for 50. This statement is completely true. Now that you got owned on that you're trying to modify the situation so that we have to defend an aspect that no one ever said.

    So 50 people could never attack hijackers at the same time...much like the way they did on 9/11? How about the shoe bomber; when they saw what he was doing they jumped his ass and detained him. The point he was making is that if people wouldn't take this shit and did fight back they would be a lot better off. It had nothing to do with your conditions.

    lol what kind of question is that, it doesn't have an answer.

    Right, everyone is wrong but you. Who was the moron sounding like a 12 year old again?
     
  2. Also, pre-9/11 I carried a nice 3.25" knife on airplanes. I'd venture to say a 1/4 of the people here pack knives all the time. Maybe most people on the 9/11 flights didn't because they were mostly from the north, but I'm sure there were several people armed with some kind of knife. They allowed anything up to 3.5"...I think they might have even lifted that ban.
     
  3. I'm changing the statement? WTF??? Can you read?
     
  4. There have been a lot of hijacks after 9/11. I don't remember seeing other planes crashing into buildings.

    edit: about their insufficient training: 2000 people were killed in 9/11.As Tickla said there was an Israeli soldier in the plane and he didn't change anything (I didn't know that).
     
  5. Yes, but apparently you can't. Go back and read the #1 post again, I'm sorry if the concept of sticking to what is said goes over your head. But usually in arguments when someone (i.e. you) can't come back with anything you change the conditions; as in now you've taken it from the theoretical of 50 people taking on three to the logistics of making that actually happen. There is a difference, and no matter how much you try to say "lol wut r u talkin bout" it's perfectly obvious to everyone else.
     
  6. wtf??? Wasn't that guy talking about.......airplane hijacks?

    Stop being a #$%#ing moron.STFU seriously

    edit: and btw that guy wrote "50 PASSENGERS".It was very clear what the inbred redneck was talking about.
     
  7. I only carry 3.5" Floppy with me (AT ALL TIMES).
    Never know when an emergency may occur.
     
  8. People who say that civilians should not try and resist terrorists or hijackers should remember Richard Reed, an al-Qaeda member who placed a bomb in his shoe but was unable to detonate it because passengers on board stopped him. He's now rotting in 23 hours-per-day solitary confinement in the USA's harshest prison.
     
  9. Did you eat paint chips as a kid or something? Lets examine a statement from the first post, "Fifty passengers can easily overwhelm three hijackers, no matter what they are armed with. When only three have the courage to counterattack, it makes things harder." Hello, anyone home? How can you not understand how correct that statement is? Then you argue that they stand no chance against hijackers. After everyone called you on that you changed your statement again to say that only a couple people might do something. Well no shit, that's the problem we're all discussing here. The theoretical being that if more people stood up then it would be easier to stop hijackers.

    The only person being a moron here is you, you #$%#ing idiot.

    No shit, and apparently you're stupider than an "inbred redneck". Go back and read what he wrote, then what you wrote. You're modifying your statement and trying to get people to argue with it.
     
  10. Nothing wrong with carrying a knife, it's a very handy tool.
     
  11. Australian accent is hot!
     
  12. I only carry 3.5" Floppy with me (AT ALL TIMES).
    Never know when an emergency may occur.
     
  13. #89 mpg, Mar 1, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  14. ATL confiscated the cake serving set from my wedding reception.
     
  15. I'll assume we're talking about your penis.
     
  16. How the #$%# is that changing the statement you idiot? I said something and then I tried to prove it because some people are obviously too stupid to understand it by themselves.

    About Richard Reed.He had a #$%#ing bomb.It was clear that if they did nothing they would die.If they were in a bus people would run away.That's not possible in a plane.That's why they acted because it was the ONLY option.

    What that moron was talking is a plane hijack.In 99,99% of the cases the hijackers surrunder or they get killed by special forces or something like that.9/11 was an exception.
     
  17. I already explained that very clearly more than once. There is no point in discussing it with you because either A: Your brain isn't developed enough to grasp the concept, or B: You don't care to think about it. Right, its several people arguing against you and you're right for some reason you can't explain.

    What's your point? A mob of people stopped a hijacker, the end. You're once again making assumptions, how could they know it was a bomb? Were the passengers experts in shoe bomb construction? For all they knew it was some guy lighting his shoe on fire. The reason they stopped him likely had more to do with his very odd behavior right after 9/11. I'm not sure why that matters anyhow.

    Right, so just pull 99.99% out of your ass and expect me to just accept it. Just like you tried to get us to accept your modified statement. Maybe I can make this clear for you, for your statement to be accurate there would have to of been 4,000 hijackings since the airplane was invented if the 9/11 events alone were the only tragic loss of life due to a hijacking. Well, I don't know the exact number but after a little research the total number of hijackings seems to be somewhere near 800-900. A quick look at that wiki list showed another several hijackings that resulted in the loss of most of the passengers. It also noted several attempts at suicide missions that were foiled. And about a third listed some loss of life. Meaning that not only are suicide missions another mass losses of life the outcome much more often than .01% of the time, but there is also a significant chance of a small number of passengers being killed.

    So that's acceptable to you? Go along with it and so long as it's not your body being dumped onto the tarmac?
     
  18. No,I didn't modify anything. I said that it's retarded and then explained why.

    Instead of just googling 'Richard Reid' you come up with something completly stupid.

    You just brillantly proved how #$%#ing stupid you are.
     
  19. Well lets take a look at your first three statements:

    ________________
    "Fifty passengers can easily overwhelm three hijackers, no matter what they are armed with"

    That guy is so #$%#ing stupid.
    ________________

    ________________
    The hijackers are trained. 99% of the passengers aren't.

    Among the 50 passengers there are old people,women,fatasses and people who never had a fight in their lives.Maybe there's 2 or 3 Rambos with carbon knives but they would have to sit next to each other to coordinate an attack.
    ________________

    ________________
    The 50 people could never attack the hijackers at the same time and as I said before only a few of these 50 people would be capable to handle someone with a knife.
    ________________



    The guy was right, fifty passengers could easily take 3 hijackers. It's a very simple premise. You reject this, then when questioned your second statement you try to defend yourself by saying that there are only a few rambos capable of doing anything and start hinting about the logistics involved. Then in your third statement you move again to talk about the logistics necessary for 50 people to rise up. NEWSFLASH #$%#FACE, that = a change in your argument. You went from denying the hypothetical on its face to denying it mostly because of the lack of rambos to denying it mostly because of the logistics involved. Not only that but the final argument you cooked up doesn't have anything to do with his statement. Could fifty pissed off passengers take 3 hijackers? Yes. He said nothing about coordination, just that if they took action they would win.

    Everyone knows who he is and what happened. You've shown everyone yet again that you're retarded.

    You can lie to yourself all you want, but everyone else can read that and understand that you're a liar, you lack rational thought, and you're not too good at statistics. Go ahead and explain how my disproving your statement makes me look stupid. You won't, because you can't; unless you're delusional enough to think you're right.

    I haven't argued with someone this stupid since the Homero Era. Get back to your solarium you inbred freak.
     
  20. This is so #$%#ing unbelievable.

    Everything that came after my first post was an attempt to EXPLAIN WHY that is a stupid idea.I didn't change anything.

    Is that so difficult to understand?
     
  21. Its unbelievable that your parents never smothered you with a pillow.

    Well no shit, and you're dumb as a box of rocks for trying to argue a point he never made. Perhaps if he said it would be a snap to organize resistance, or that every passenger can disarm someone with a knife. But he didn't, he merely said that it was easier to stop such things with 50 people rather than 3. Insinuating that more people need to resist so that these things are quickly quelled. Not stupid by any stretch. And I understand that you were supporting your argument after your first statement...which is why I didn't say anything about it other then that you were defending your statement. I guess you glossed over that part. It was between the second and third statement, as I stated before. Your third statement makes a valid point about the realities of what would happen today, whereas the whole point of the OP's post was about the "what if" hypotheticals of more aggressive passengers. You can't compare the two.

    No, you must not have read my last post because I already covered your current argument about defending your first post. In order for me to take you seriously you actually have to read what I say and think about it; is that so difficult to understand?
     
  22. Spyder, find me a carbon fiber knife. I want the blade to be carbon
     

Share This Page