If a nut is waving a boxcutter in a theatre, I have the option of leaving through a door or window. The police have the option of coming in and disarming the nut.
How does that work on an airplane?
No. A boxcutter will not be effective in getting into the cockpit, nor will it be effective to stop counterinsurgency from other passengers. YMMV, of course, but I can’t image an entire plane full of people sitting idly by while a bunch of terrorists work on the cockpit door just because one of them is brandishing a boxcutter. I’d say that they’re even more ineffective after 9/11, given the knowledge of the passengers on UA93 fighting back. A boxcutter won’t be anymore effective than a ballpoint pen.
No. Just because something is ineffective for hijacking doesn’t mean it can’t be used to harm others onboard.
Whether some will have the capacity to attempt to stop terrorists is not an issue. My mileage absolutely varies. I know what well trained men with weapons can accomplish.
Well, then they should be allowed to carry the same sort of items one can carry on a bus in most jurisdictions, no? Bottles, nail clippers, Swiss Army knives?
Indeed, but my view is much different, obviously. It’s just my personal opinion that one (or two, even three) men with a boxcutter isn’t going to bring a plane full of 150+ people down.
Yes, yes, yes, and no. I’d say that knives of any kind shouldn’t be allowed on airplanes or buses.
Banning boxcutters doesn’t make passengers noticeably safer in 2008. If they had banned boxcutters in 2000, that might have made 9/11 more difficult, but even without boxcutters the plan might have worked.
The simple plan was, we take control of the passenger cabin, we threaten to harm the passengers, we get access to the cockpit. And since everyone is trained to just sit tight and wait for the plane to eventually land, no one does anything until it’s too late.
Boxcutters are not a helpful tool to gain access to the cockpit in 2008. A boxcutter is no more dangerous than lots of other objects that are allowed.
I’ve got no problem allowing nail clippers and tweezers, it’s ridiculous to ban nail clippers.
As for what trained me with weapons can accomplish, well, what are four guys with boxcutters going to accomplish in 2008? Hold off the passengers long enough to break down the cockpit door? You honestly think 4 guys with boxcutters can fend off a hundred guys whose survival depends on stomping the terrorists to paste?
Here again, people can get on and off a bus.
Yes. Especially in such close quarters by men who have training and have practiced every possible scenario for months.
Oh yeah? A trained small team of men with box cutters can’t inflict major damage on most if not all the passengers on a bus because they can easily open the door and hop off because they’re not 30,000 feet in the air?
You watch a lot of Steven Seagal movies, don’t you? For someone so keen on using the events of 9/11 to prove the overwhelming danger of the boxcutter, you seem to be pretty studiously ignoring what happened on the fourth plane that day. If a box cutter is such an overwhelmingly dangerous and intimidating weapon, how is it that the White House didn’t end up with an enormous smoking crater in it?
No, I’ve never seen a Steven Seagal movie. I do have plenty of experience in the martial arts and other forms of self defense and I know what one trained man with a blade can accomplish against several unarmed, untrained men, not to mention what a group of armed men in tandem can accomplish.
I have a few problems with your post.
First, people who read books about Islam are, generally speaking, members of the religion. You and I and a good number of people may read up on it to educate ourselves, but we’re in the minority. Books aimed at audiences like you and I are carry titles like “Understanding Islam” and “An Introduction to Islam.” When you get into much more specific books about personal experiences, the audience of people like you and I decreases substantially.
Think about Christian books–you might read a book about historical accuracy of the bible, an introduction to the various saints, but an actual practicing member of the religion is more likely to read something like “The Purpose Driven Life.”
So when you see a man carrying around a book like “The Noble Qur’an”, a title that strikes me as more propagandistic than educational, it is plenty reasonable to assume the person is likely muslim.
Secondly, it is not “looking muslim” that makes you dangerous. It is the beliefs in fundamentalist Islam and a violent mindset that are dangerous. Here is a webpage that presents a number of different people who neither looked muslim nor came from predominantly muslim countries that committed terrorism in the name of Islam.
I’m actually more impressed that they analyzed his personal beliefs in assessing his threat level over anything as superficial as brown skin.
This, though I do agree with. However, a boxcutter is not primarily a weapon, even on an airplane. It is a tool, in line with a swiss army knife or corkscrew wine opener.
I wonder about a pilot’s ability to withstand the pressure of a hostage situation. I like to think most are trained to just land the plane and ensure the safety of the greater good, but I think there is a good number of pilots who would yield control of the cockpit if they thought it could save passenger lives that were in immediate danger.
FWIW, my brother (ex-USAF) told me that the vast majority of commercial airline pilots are former military. As he tells it, the process for getting a license for flying planes differs dramatically from getting a license for an automobile. You have to log hours on that type of aircraft, build your way up from single engine to multi engine, on to jets, etc. Of course you’d have to also rent or buy the plane, pay the upkeep and fuel costs, hangar it, and so on. Unless you’re super rich and have little else to do, you can’t up and decide you want to pilot a big jet and accomplish it in short order.
Many of his former cohorts went into the airlines after retiring from the air force. Some probably joined with the express purpose of flying and letting the government foot a bill they couldn’t. With a military background, I think they could withstand a great deal of pressure.
That kind of background might also make them more inclined to think they could “take back” the cockpit once everyone was safe. Not, IMHO, a safe bet, but something to think about.
Well, that was the whole pre 9/11 mindset. Just yield control of the plane, and eventually you’ll run out of fuel and have to land, and once you’re on the ground then the experts will take over, and either negotiators will convince the hijackers to let the passengers go, or a commando team goes in and takes out the hijackers.
But post 9/11, if the hijackers are holding a knife to a hostages throat, then what good would yielding control of the plane do? If the hijackers gain control of the plane everyone is dead. I imagine plenty of people could be intimidated into giving up control of a plane this way, except none of those people is likely to be a modern airline pilot. Besides, the door is closed and locked, so it’s not like the pilot has to watch the throat cutting personally. Is the pilot really that much of a coward that he can’t stand that the hijackers are cutting the throats of the passengers, and so will hand over control of the plane, thus ensuring that not only will all the passengers now die, but he’ll also die? And if he’s that much of a coward, why is he opening the door to give the bad men with knives the ability to cut his own throat?
I suppose people who haven’t thought the problem through might make the wrong choice, but every airline pilot has to have been trained about what to do in such an eventuality. And opening the cockpit door and surrendering means that instead of one guy with a cut throat we’ve got thousands of dead.
I notice you’re still ducking the flight 93 example.
Oh brother. One example of terrorists not being successful with box cutters is supposed to tell me that it can’t happen? I guess that’s also supposed to be some sort of evidence that terrorists would never attempt it again? What point are you attempting to make?
I think it’s entirely plausible that he started hollowing out a book for stashing stuff, and left the box cutter in it until he finished. And then just hadn’t finished it yet. When questioned, he decided that coming clean about his intended use for the book would help.
I can not think of a plausible reason that he decided to take this book on the plane.
The point I’m making is that it’s plainly obvious that a plane load of people can, in fact, overwhelm several men armed with boxcutters. And I’ll go ahead and add that, because that point is so obvious, terrorists are indeed very unlikely to try it again. 9/11 worked because the hijackers were counting on the passengers not fighting back. When they did fight back, they were unable to carry out their plans.
Did you think I was unaware of what happened on 9/11? Your point is irrelevant. If you think that a plane full of ordinary people will always be able to fight off a team of highly trained men with blades before they can slice the necks of the younger men and quickly overtake a cockpit door, you’re the one who has maybe seen to many Steven Seagal movies.
What do you mean by “holy” terrorist?
Well, admittedly, we are probably underprepared for the dangers of ninja terrorists, but I don’t think it’s possible you’re overstating the threat just a tad.