Ok, all knowing moron, Godspeed.

"one of us may save your life one day, Then again maybe one of us won't" Bill Murray.. Stripes

"moron"

Well, that shows the caliber of people employed as FAM's. If in fact, you are what you claim.

I suggest you read the TOS. This is not TSAWhiner.com, this is a civilized BB.

And, IF you are what you say you are, I doubt very much that you will ever save a life on an airplane. The passengers are the first and last line of defense.

Civilized huh? In post #25, you called him a poorly trained, federal hack. He then called you a moron. Birds of a feather... Lay off the personal and professional insults CameraGuy, and you can probably expect the same in return. The TOS is a two way street.

Ah, this is the high level of intellect and debate that I have come to expect here.....but I wonder, where is FWAAA to call you on the carpet...oh never mind we have YOU utilizing the dreaded TOS after calling people on this very forum, let's see - "hacks" and "joke" - but you threaten people with the TOS if they call you moron AFTER you call them names.

Brilliant.

As for passengers being the first and last line of defense - nope. I will say again, and have yet to be refuted, that it isn't so. Let's skip the opinion and go to the FACTS and DOCUMENTATION:

The only plane on 9/11 that was unwarned was the first plane (American flight 11). They were totally unprepared. United flight 175 (the second one into the Tower) was warned, although not in much time to do anything. They had only a few minutes. One passenger, Brian Sweeney called his mom (8:59 AM) and told her the passengers were thinking about storming the cockpit. Another passenger, Peter Hanson called his dad (9:00 AM) and told him that he believed the hijackers were going to crash into a building but in Chicago. Minutes later they crashed (9:03 AM). American flight 77 was hijacked between 8:51 and 8:54. Between 9:16 and 9:26 Barbara Olson called her husband, the Solicitor General of the US, and notified him of what had happened. He in turn notified her that the planes were being used as weapons. She asked what to tell the pilot. The plane crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37:46. They never fought back. United 93 was hijacked at 9:28. At 9:32 people started calling their families and were notified of the attacks. They took a vote and decided to attempt to retake the plane. The passenger assault began at 9:57 and lasted until the hijackers crashed the plane at 10:02.

Look at those times - there was time to fight and nobody did. Only the last flight fought back and it took 25 MINUTES AND A VOTE! This is not to disparage their memories-they were heroic. My point is that most people are not born with the basic double-load of guts. They need time to work up their courage. Going from zero to killing people in a matter of seconds is difficult if not impossible for the average civilian. A few of the Alphas may step forward and get the rest in the fight, but you need time for that. It takes time....adrenaline is a hell of a thing. It freezes many people, especially if they just saw someone brutally murdered. Nonetheless the myth of the passengers fighting back is just that - a myth. Trained soldiers in WWII had a firing rate of only 20%. Think about that - only 20% of TRAINED soldiers in WWII fired their weapons at the enemy. The rate was raised to 80% in Korea and 95% in Vietnam. But that was only because of innovations in training, not because of a new breed of human was developed. Passengers fighting back will only happen given time and the ability to coordinate. Do you think the next hijackers will give them the time to do so? Send them to the back of the plane like on 9/11? I don't. They learn their lessons and have since terrorists began using hijacking as a means of political speech in 1985 (TWA 847 in Athens, Greece).

Sorry Camera, but all the evidence shows that people will NOT in fact fight back. Only 1/3 of the planes on 9/11 did, even after they knew what was going to happen. And the only one that did needed 25 minutes to do so.

Now please enlighten me on the times you have fought for your life, the weapons you have used and had used against you and the tactics you used to survive. Explain to me the effects of adrenaline on the human body and how you have utilized and been trained in scenario-based training to overcome their effects. Tell me what a bad mofo you are and how you could single-handledly defeat the next hijacking (because if you jump up first you will be alone until someone else jumps up to help you (hope they aren't all the way in the back)) What do you think your life expectancy is ?

Quoting Stripes, wow. Now this person's bringing in the serious thinkers and the nuanced analysis.

Its better than calling people jokes and poorly trained hacks. That is truly nuanced.

How is it better?

Man, this is a new low. Arguing about the quality of insults.....

I am saying that it is better to quote silly movies and make points utilizing <sarcasm mode on> serious thinkers and nuanced analysis <sarcasm mode off> than to merely insult people. Like Cameraguy did.

But that is just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

Man, is right. My post gets called a "new low" for asking someone to explain him/herself. I didn't call anyone by any four letter words. I didn't use fifteen angry faces. I didn't rant and rave about someone or some entity.

If you think that's a new low I respectfully request that you read more of this forum.

I play to my audience.. And that quote was a joke.. If you want a more serious one I could rent caddyshack and try to find one that suits you.. Do I need to mention that some of us use irony, sarcasm, even glib remarks..

And yes I know that it's been said sarcasm is the mark of a weak mind..Yawn.. Usually perpetrated by those who don't get it and/or can't sell it..

I dont think I need to address Cameraguys threat as some folks have already seen to it.. Let's try to remember pot and kettle..

I agree with you that merely insulting people is inappropriate and unhelpful. Obviously, my "quoting Stripes" post was tongue in cheek and meant to be playful and hopefully somewhat humorous.

The words quoted by BPH show the arrogance and disdain of some who purport to be FAMs (I hope you die, you'd die if I wasn't protecting you) show for the general public. I don't think there's much difference between the name calling and the arrogant attitude. And that's just my opinion.

It works both ways. I believe most of this was started by a few regular posters that started slamming some of (us) new guys. I try to differentiate between the two but it gets hard sometimes. You lose so much communication in this type of forum....you lose inflection, tone, non-verbals, etc.

So maybe we all need to take a breath and re-evaluate?

My opinion only. Your mileage may vary.

I think Cameraguy just got put in he same catagory as Spiff.

Let's get something straight right now:

Calling an individual member a MORON is a personal attack.

Refering to FAM's in general as Poorly Trained Hacks is NOT.

Here in MA, we refer to overpaid Government Employees as hacks. Thus, that term. As for poorly trained, I'll let the steller record of the FAM service speak for itself.

Calling any government agency a joke is not an attack on the employees of that agency, it is an attack on the agency itself.

The fact that I needed to point this out indicates that we are probably not dealing with real FAM's, but a bunch of teenagers in dire need of adult supervision.