Four handguns could have changed the world on 9/11

T

Trebor

New member
Here's my latest Detroit Gun Rights Examiner article. This one is on how 9/11 was due to the policy that compliance was better then resisting hijackers.

Four handguns could have changed the world on 9/11

"On September 11, 2001, terrorists armed with box cutters flew four hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.

As the 10th Anniversary of 9/11 approaches we are still feeling the repercussions of that day. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost us dearly in “blood and treasure.” On the home front the Patriot Act, “enhanced” TSA screenings, and the “no fly list,” show how we’ve given up many of our liberties for the false promise of security

The tragedy is it didn’t have to be this way. Four handguns, and the will to use to use them, could have kept us from this path."
 
I am all for the right for an American to defend him or herself

I went to High school with the Bavis brothers. Watched them win State Championships in Hockey. Although I was not in their Class, they were friendly to underclassmen, as were all upperclassmen at our Catholic High school. I truly believe that my attitudes towards right and wrong, and respect and consideration, as well as theirs, came in no small part to how we were taught in High school

I believe, in my heart, that he resisted the terrorists that day, perhaps even as United 175 impacted WTC. He was not of the faint of heart or the submissive, and he had a clear understanding of right and wrong. Mark was raised to believe in Right

Another aircraft's passengers successfully resisted that day

Four handguns may have done something. But, four groups of Americans also could have, regardless of weapons. There are so many maybes. One thing is certain- the next terr that tries to do that may kill a couple passengers with his weapon. But the rest will tear him or her to shreds aboard the aircraft if they are able to move

Interesting article, Trebor
 
 
I believe that all of the weapons in the world can not stop man from doing evil.
Click to expand...

I believe that most people are good and had just a fraction of them would allow themselves to be armed as intended, America would be a better place overall.
 
It's a big jump to say 4 handguns could have prevented the attacks. That would be a very high stress situation for a civilian to be able to control.
 
I too believe a few firearms in the proper hands could have changed 9/11. That was such a horrible day in American History and still bothers me quite a bit.
 
I have never understood the logic of a society that decides it is acceptable to require a Brinks truck driver to carry a sidearm but being somehow "uncomfortable" with the idea of arming the flight crew of every passenger aircraft that almost anyone can buy a ticket and board, especially in light of how stupid that policy has now been proven to be.
 
A lack of weaponry on planes had nothing to do with the success of the 9/11 terrorists.

They didn't exploit a physical security weakness or overwhelm defenses. They exploited a mindset.

Prior to 9/11, the reaction to a hijacking was scripted, drilled, accepted: cooperate with the hijackers and don't get anyone on the plane killed. It was assumed -- as this had been the course of almost every hijacking in history -- that hijackers would direct the plane somewhere and then negotiate for what they wanted.

Had that long-standing assumption not been the cornerstone of "hijackee" behavior then everything would have been different...as is obvious from the fate of Flight 93, where the passengers overwhelmed the terrorists as soon as it was understood it was a suicide mission.

There is of course no such assumption now. (Which is why it's completely inane for airport security to be seizing, for instance, little pocket knives or children's scissors. But that's another topic.)
 
For the sake of discussion ... are handguns the right weapon for in-flight defense? Accidentally shooting out a window would quickly depressurize the cabin. A stray bullet that hit hydraulics, wiring or other critical systems could quickly nose-dive the plane into a densely populated area. And, of course, you have several thousand pounds of highly flammable jet fuel that could be ignited by a spark.

I'm 100% behind our right, as citizens of the U.S., to keep and bear arms. I'm also a big fan of the right tool for the job. Are handguns (or any firearms) the right tool for the job on a commerical jet?
 
Probably, but if memory serves, VP Al Gore chaired a report on air safety which made recommendations including that cabin doors be reinforced to resist forced entry.
The airlines whined that they couldn't make such expensive changes and nothing happened.

This isn't to praise AG, just to give a time stamp; I just want to point out that there was another solution to this problem that was proposed well in advance of 9/11/01. It could have been equally effective. We ended up with the reinforced cockpit doors anyways...
 
[/QUOTE]For the sake of discussion ... are handguns the right weapon for in-flight defense? Accidentally shooting out a window would quickly depressurize the cabin. A stray bullet that hit hydraulics, wiring or other critical systems could quickly nose-dive the plane into a densely populated area. And, of course, you have several thousand pounds of highly flammable jet fuel that could be ignited by a spark.[/QUOTE]

Are handguns the right tool? Absolutely! That is why there are Federal Air Marshalls on planes armed with handguns. That is why there are a significant number of pilots (a classified number) who carry pistols. The myth of RD, rapid decompression, from a bullet hole is grossly overblown. A stray bullet might hit a wire but even severing a wire isn't going to bring an airliner down. In no way can it penetrate far enough to hit a hydraulic line or fuel line/tank since they are deep in the belly of the plane. As a retired Air Force pilot and a long-serving airline pilot, I can say, unequivocally, that this has been investigated and guns are safe. Blow out a window? I doubt it. If you saw how thick cocpit windows are you wouldn't worry about. Cabin windows? Double pane! Even if a bullet hit one, either accidently or on purpose, you might have a blow out but more likely you would just have a window with a hole in it and a slow depressurization. The myth of depressurization has been done a huge disservice by TV and movie directors who imply that a rupture of the fuselage or even a window, causes immediate loss of control (not), the passengers are sucked out of the hole (not), and all is lost. Other than the issue of reduced atmosphere, RDs are pretty benign.

For the record, I wish that all airline pilots were required to carry handguns. Right now, the process if voluntary. In addition, to the box cutters that the hijackers carried, they played into the, then, current policy of non-confrontational hijacking policy. We were expected to go along with hijackers demands who were usually not violent. That policy is no longer in effect.

[/QUOTE] ... VP Al Gore chaired a report on air safety which made recommendations including that cabin doors be reinforced to resist forced entry.
The airlines whined that they couldn't make such expensive changes and nothing happened. [/QUOTE]


Not quite correct. Airline doors ARE armored to withstand certain ballistics. I don't recall if that information is classified so I will leave it at that. Not only are they armored, but they have other features that make the door almost impossible to defeat. Yes, the airlines might have complained about the cost but, in the end, the arguement that the cost of one airplane brought down was cheaper than a whole fleet's worth of armored doors.


Ok, off my soapbox
 
A solid door and lock could have as well.

They exploited a weakness. They had years to think this up. If there HAD been civilian carry onboard, they wouldn't have used airliners- it would have been another form (I can think of an easy alternative without trying too hard, actually)
 
A solid door and lock could have as well.

They exploited a weakness.
Click to expand...

+1
For decades it was the policy of the US gov't and the airlines to give the plane to the hijackers. Prior to 911 the airlines refused to install dead bolt locks on their cockpit doors. Some of those same airlines resisted the installation of secure cockpit doors after 911.

Coleen Rowley an FBI special agent warned that terrorists were planning to attack the US using airliners. She was ignored. Warnings from Mossad and the Philippine gov't were also ignored.

http://morallowground.com/2010/12/0...uld-have-been-prevented-if-wikileaks-existed/

Coleen Rowley, a former FBI special agent whose Minneapolis field office warned of terrorists training for an airliner hijacking attack in 2001 but was ignored, says that 9/11 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................

She points to a pre-9/11 investigation of airline security in which weapons were smuggled onto planes in 90% of test cases. The findings of the probe were suppressed and airlines refused to install expensive security bolts on cockpit doors.
 
I think it's a blanket statement to imply that an armed pilot would have prevented the hijacking. In the Ayoob story you linked to, a mentally unstable man was deterred by the possibility of lethal force. On some level, he didn't want to die.

The 9/11 hijackers were fully prepared to die. They wanted it. This was their ticket to martyrdom. The rules change in that situation. Lethal force is not a deterrent. A ship's cannons don't scare a Kamikaze pilot.
 
Tom Servo, as one of those pilot types, let me point out that a deterrent isn't necessary, per se.

There's only one door into the flight station. It's typically only wide enough to allow one person through at a time. "Funnel of Death" is the phrase that leaps to mind.

An armed pilot could easily have stopped forced ingress, assuming the bad guys didn't have firearms.
 
An armed pilot could easily have stopped forced ingress, assuming the bad guys didn't have firearms.
Click to expand...
I'll have you know that I've played Microsoft Flight Simulator 1998, sir. I think I know a few things...:D

I wish the pilots were armed and prepared prior to the hijackings. One or more of the strikes might have been prevented. My objection is to the blanket statement we've repeatedly heard that, if they'd been armed, the whole thing never would have happened.

Handguns weren't a panacea in Tuscon or Carson City. We've seen threads in which people implicate that they'd have single-handedly held flash mobs at bay with a 5-shot revolver.

My point is that one person with a handgun can't always stop terrible things from happening. A group of driven people, who are not only unafraid but expecting death, would be willing to take a casualty or two in order to overpower a pilot. The pilot would be taking care not to inflict collateral damage, while the attackers have no such concerns.

There are folks out there who can take a box cutter to a gunfight and prevail.

(Good lord, how loud would the report be in a cabin?)
 
The SOP for hijackings back then was too not resist and do what the hijackers wanted.

I suspect if the passengers had an inkling of what was going to happen the other two flights would have ended up like flight 93 because the passengers there were clued in to the fate of the other two flights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top