Michael Moore is being sued!

[spazzed]

Personally, I'm still waiting for CB, in all his infinite wisdom, to explain why the tactics of defense employed by El Al are so sucessful, considering that an armed "marshall" aboard *SARCASM & MOCKERY* is obviously not the best option*/SARCASM & MOCKERY*

[Steelrat]

Ye gods, I sure as hell hope the marshals are NOT using frangible ammunition on those planes. Thats just a bad idea. And unfortuately, it is far too easy to spot the armed officers on a plane, once you know what to look for.

On a side note, Im very interested in how the M2s held up to RPG fire. The whole Bradley program was dogged early on by overexaggeration of its ability to take hits from various weapons, including RPGs. I was hoping that it all was resolved. And yes, I do realize its an APC (or IFV, whatever) and the RPG is technically and anti-tank weapon

[Collegeboy]

I am trying to get to the point of the idea that bullets shot into the side of a plane will make a hole that is larger then the one hole that you and others have said. AS in bullets shot within a 2 inch radius of each other will cause a hole about 2 inches in diameter. I know that no one will be sucked out unless the metal of the plane already had a problem with it. That two inches is not big enough to do anything, but it does show that the bullets will physically cause more damage the you and other will like to admit.

No, the Air Marshal is not going to be easy noticeable. But knowing what will happen the terrorist will devise a plan to make the marshal stand out. They will send two first, and once the air marshal is id the others that are just waiting will commence to take him down and take his gun.

Like I said the Ak-74 Shorty is 10 to 11 inches with its barrel removed. I said to begin with an Ak-47 or 76(meant 74) can be made to be around 8 inches (CAN BE MADE). I was 3 inches off.

It guess some people will never allow anything different in their heads (and yes, I do allow new ideas etc.., every time you all say something I take it in and evaluate it, 9 times out of ten it is outer garbage and have to hit the delete button)

There are numerous ways in which to render the terrorist incapacitated without the dangers of using a gun.

1) Rapid decompression of the airplane, with air mask either falling down or not, both would work. Innocents will die, but the few that would die is better then the 1000 that could.

2) Uprising up the populace in the plane against the terrorist

All of which were part of my ideas I have had, why don't you try to come up with some other ideas.

See Army that is how you make a post without calling people a name, next time please learn how to do it.

[spazzed]

HELLO!!! Mr. Selective Reading!!

Originally posted by spazzed
Personally, I'm still waiting for CB, in all his infinite wisdom, to explain why the tactics of defense employed by El Al are so sucessful, considering that an armed "marshall" aboard *SARCASM & MOCKERY* is obviously not the best option*/SARCASM & MOCKERY*

[spazzed]

Originally posted by Collegeboy

No, the Air Marshal is not going to be easy noticeable. But knowing what will happen the terrorist will devise a plan to make the marshal stand out. They will send two first, and once the air marshal is id the others that are just waiting will commence to take him down and take his gun.

What the hell are they gonna do, spork him to death, or maybe gouge his eyes out w/ a butterknife, or *maybe* even throw spent shell casings at him! In a one aisled plane, or even a 2 aisled plane, the air marshall *Will ALWAYS* have the upper hand, and will in virtually all situations be able to eliminate the threat, regardless of any "scouts" they may send. They have to be w/in arms reach of him, whereas he can be *anywhere* on the plane.

Originally posted by Collegeboy

See Army that is how you make a post without calling people a name, next time please learn how to do it.

Ok seriously, you're a tool. Get a life. Goto a new school. You tell us to think for ourselves, yet you constantly & consistantly do the exact thing which you accuse us of doing. I swear, if I have to keep reading this crap, I think I'm gonna hurl.

[Konigballer]

Collegeboy, an AK of anymodel, of any kind WILL NOT FIRE "with the barrel removed"!!!! It does'nt matter how short it is disassembled!

1. Like I already posted, you never mentioned the gun having the barrel removed when your first stated your argurement. Like everything else, you just added that part later and hoped that would cover your lack of knowledge that contributed to the original comment in the first place.

2. To remove the barrel you would also have to disassemble the a. cleaning rod
b. fore end grip
c. gas tube with upper hand
guard.
Without the gas tube in place the weapon will not fire. It will be useless. I know you dont know this though I'm sure later u will try to sidestep and claim u did. An assualt rifle does not work like a paintball gun, you cant fire the AK without it being assembled with the gas tube.

3. God, if you think the reciever of a kaishnikov, that being the big metal block that the trigger frame and and magazine stick out of, measures "8inches" your even more ignorant than I thought. I wish I had the measurements of individual parts because I know your never going to admit you were completely wrong. However, heres a solution. Find a picture of a guy holding an AK and look at the size of his hand compared to the length of the reciever. Then measure out 8inches and compare that to your own hand. You'll notice that 8inches looks miniscule compared to the AK reciever's actual length in the picture...problem solved, your wrong again.

4. Collegeboy, this just proves once more why you shouldnt debate on this thread when you have no idea what your talking about so I'll just quote myself from a previous post:
"Your whole arguement of terrorist overpowering a pistol equiped airmarshall was based on them being able to conceal a magical AK on to an airliner. Your arguement on that point, as with all your others in this debate, is in admissable because its completely based on ignorance. Please, feel free to admit you cannot argue in this debate with any kind of validity as you do not have the knowledge to do so."

[Army]

The Cop can be easily ID'ed?

Walk through first class, see all the men with coats on? Which one has the gun? Badge?

Walk through business class, see all the men with coats on? Which one has the gun? Badge?

Walk through coach, see all the men with coats on? Which one has the gun? Badge?

Walk back to the front of the plane...who ever said the Marshall is a man?

There are so many ways to conceal a firearm on your person, you would be amazed. I witnessed an agent wearing 13 full-size pistols, and there was no way to discerne by looking at him, that he was carrying at all. No, it is simply not true to easily ID a Cop on a plane.

CB, I beg you, leave your stupidity about firearms out of this discussion. You are only proving to all...again... that you are a dimwit.

Oh yeah, and just to soothe your bruised PC ego....I'm not calling you names, I'm stating fact.

[Restola]

Originally posted by Army
Oh yeah, I'm seriously curious how you plan on monitoring the health of any elderly persons, asthmatics, infants and toddlers, and anyone under certain medications while you suffocate them? How do you plan to stop the AUTOMATIC, NO BY-PASS circuits from dropping the breathing apparatus? How do you keep the Attendants from passing out too? Who is going to stop the drink cart from rolling madly down the aisle when the aircraft AUTOMATICALLY dives to a lower altitude?

In fairness I think it was me who mentioned the idea of intentionally decompressing the aircraft. Thought it would be more of a desperation move, but Army can kick my idea's butt any day.

[Army]

Steelrat, why NOT use frangible bullets? Properly engineered and fired into a soft target, they will devastate flesh, yet destroy themselves on harder surfaces with minimal penetration.

Every Marshall uses them.

[Steelrat]

Frangible bullets cannot reliably penetrate the seats. Therefore, they could potentially be used as cover. I cannot see the reasoning behind using frangile bullets. The primary danger lies in shooting the floor, which good fire discipline should prevent.

[davidb]

You mentioned it (albeit after he had already said "why not..?"), but you also have the good sense to back down after people explain why it's a terrible idea.

Army, how fast do you think you could assemble an AK variant? Collegeboy, tell me, do you think that a terrorist could do it as fast? Now tell me this: do you think a terrorist would be stupid enough to try it on a crowded plane?

You also presented the ideas to just let the passengers deal with it, or to suffocate all of them into unconsciousness. You are perfectly comfortable with the fact that some of them would almost certainly die, because it would supposedly prevent thousands of others from dieing. You're overlooking something - the terrorists are NOT going to get control of the plane. The best they could hope for would be to blow it up, crash it, or in some other manner kill the passengers. Remember that - Their objective would be to KILL PASSENGERS! Your plans both let them know for a fact that they would be successful to some extent!

After you suffocate the passengers and terrorists, and assuming everything goes to plan, who is going back to tie up the bad guys? The pilot? You already said that he had better things to do. The copilot? ..God forbid.. An air marshall? How does he know who the bad guys are? They aren't necessarily armed, now are they? Come to terms with it CB, it's a BAD IDEA!!!

As for letting the passengers deal with it - Of course this works, if the parameters for success are that the terrorists do not get control of the plane. Hell, for that matter, since we've already decided that the lives of those on the plane are expendable, why not just crash the plane into the closest open ground?

To use your logic (kids, don't try this at home), if a terrorist managed to disarm the air marshall, he would be able to kill at most two of the passengers before he were overwhelmed. Isn't that right?

Go back and read my other posts, they clearly prove why you are wrong about everything and I am right about everything.




No.. That wasn't continued CB logic.. I was serious!

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
Talk about people posting in rapid progression.

Unlike you I respong to all criticism, not just the one or two items I have a sound bite for.


I like to take more precautions too, that is why I do not agree with an armed air marshal. The terrorist of 911 knew that the cockpit door would not be locked or protected in anyway. That is why they went to the cockpit. If they now there is an armed air marshal on board the terrorist are going to do everything in their power to find out who, their whole actions are going be to find out this person and disarm them of their gun.

You define precaution differently then I do. I define it by taking steps to avoid tragedy. You define it by making ure tragedy occurs. Well, maybe the terrorists will look for the air marshal, maybe they'll head straight for the cabin after determining they don't know who the marshal is, and maybe they'll simply avoid hijacking the plane altogether simply out of fear that the marshal will stop them. ANy of those cases are fine by me. I'm relativly confident a trained armed marshal can defend himself in any of those circumstances. And if in 1 out of 10 scenarious he does managed to get overpowered then that's too bad, and I'm not thrilled about it, but at least that means that 9 times disaster was averted.

[bIf you have three guys running behind each other down one isle, you will be only able to get the first guy with certainty.[/b]

What's you basis for that little comment? DO you know the first thing about shooting? Have you ever shot in your whole life? Well, between Army and myself I think we're the most experienced shooters here, so let me clue you in on something. In real life, when you shoot someone their body has to go somewhere. It's not like the video games where it disappears. The second guy has to get past the body, or jump over it, or something that will slow him down a fraction of a second. That happens to be enough time to shoot him, and then repeat the process.

Some people are thinking of other ways, so I am doing something.

Every government agency is thinking of other ways. So far a better alternative has not been found. Eventually I'm sure it will be, but it will likely be expensive and take months if not years to implement. However, when that happens I'm all for it. More safety, not less.

Russia did not use the decompressing of the cabin, they used a gas.

Same difference. The point is they thought they could use some kind of "trick" to end the situation and it cost half the innocent lives there. Purposefully decompressing the chamber to knock people out, at 5 miles up, is dangereous, probably on a lot of different levels. It also is of limited utility since it is likely very possible to breach the cabin door while waiting to pass out. It's also a little scarey since then the air plane's internal systems would have to know the difference between an emergency decompression (which it drops masks) and an intentional one (which it doesn't). And god forbid it didn't prevent the hijacking now the terrorists can incapacitate the whole cabin with a push of the button.

It's not a terrible idea, but it has a lot of potential negatives.

No Albinonewt, your name calling will get you nowhere. I am not a zealot and I have my own ideas.

CB, nothing will get me anywhere when talking with you. You have your little version of the truth and nothing Army, myself, anyone on this forums, or reality can do will ever shake you out of your delusions.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Try again albinonewt.

http://members.lycos.nl/phoenixis/ak74u.htm

490 - 210 = 280 mm which according to the one I used on this one is 11 inchs.

well, the 490 is 20 inches, but I suppose the terrorists could all just sit around and BUILD their guns while the nice people sat around and let them.

Plus we're still glossing over the fact that a key chain with a bottle opener is 1", but the attendents take that away from you. I suppose the terrorists could just use the "It's a short gun" line on the flgith screeners and they'd be ok with it.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
I am trying to get to the point of the idea that bullets shot into the side of a plane will make a hole that is larger then the one hole that you and others have said. AS in bullets shot within a 2 inch radius of each other will cause a hole about 2 inches in diameter. I know that no one will be sucked out unless the metal of the plane already had a problem with it. That two inches is not big enough to do anything, but it does show that the bullets will physically cause more damage the you and other will like to admit.

Um, SO WHAT?

No really CB, who cares? This is your big contention, that an object passing through a wall leaves a hole? Well no duh genius, what else you got for us??

No, the Air Marshal is not going to be easy noticeable. But knowing what will happen the terrorist will devise a plan to make the marshal stand out. They will send two first, and once the air marshal is id the others that are just waiting will commence to take him down and take his gun.

Well, if the terrorists want to move peicemeal like that I'm all for it. And I'm sure that once the Marshal kills the first two he's going to sit back in his chair and go to sleep. Don't be silly. If they got two at a time to get him the only way it works is if they happen to luck out and have the next two sitting in such a posistion that they don't have to run at the Marshal, that they're close enough to attack the marshal by suprise.

Like I said the Ak-74 Shorty is 10 to 11 inches with its barrel removed. I said to begin with an Ak-47 or 76(meant 74) can be made to be around 8 inches (CAN BE MADE). I was 3 inches off.

Yeah, how do you propose to get it on the plane. I think the current ban on guns is all of them, not just ones over a foot long.

It guess some people will never allow anything different in their heads (and yes, I do allow new ideas etc.., every time you all say something I take it in and evaluate it, 9 times out of ten it is outer garbage and have to hit the delete button)

What new idea CB? You've been threatening us with new ideas for 10 pages but never not once said one.

There are numerous ways in which to render the terrorist incapacitated without the dangers of using a gun.

Holy smokes, you've actuall got a list now! Let's see what these are

1) Rapid decompression of the airplane, with air mask either falling down or not, both would work. Innocents will die, but the few that would die is better then the 1000 that could.

Well, so a gun is too dangereous but INTENTIONALLY killing the passengers is ok? No way buddy, the plan has to have a best case scenario where nobody dies, and yours does not.

2) Uprising up the populace in the plane against the terrorist

And do you think an armed good guy will be a benefit or a negative to that? If the Armed Marshal managed to kill just 2 or 3 of the hijakers then the rest of the plane could easily assist them with the 4th and 5th guy.

All of which were part of my ideas I have had, why don't you try to come up with some other ideas.

Didn't someone else come up with the decrompression thing? And we've all talked about the people on the plane fighting back. We're now talking about steps in addition to that. Which by the way, if we intentionally KILL or INCAPACITATE them they probably won't stage much of an uprising.

See Army that is how you make a post without calling people a name, next time please learn how to do it.

Oh wah

[Collegeboy]

Try responding to 20 different people, and see if you don't leave out something or forget to post it.

The Air Marshal aboard the one plane that was diverted to Lebonon, and the Marshal took over, and took it to London. The terrorist only numbered 2. Which I said that an Air Marshall can take out two.

No my argument is not that they will take out the Air Marshal with the AK, that is just stupid, who ever would believe that they can get an Ak with all its metal parts through any security is rather stupid.

I said in the beginning that an AK can be made down to around 8 inches, I was off by 3 inches.

I have seen Aks, have shot AKs, I know how big they are. And just to add a funny story, I have even drunk straight from a full scaled replica of a Ak that was a vodka bottle, designed by Kalashnikov himself.

No Army, you are calling me a name. I thought I would expect something more coming from a mod. But mods here can do the same thing they accuse and issue strikes to members for doing and get away with it.

I will answer all the others when I get back, plus the 100 that will be posted in the next 5 minutes.