...
>>>>
>>>>Again, I ask why they didn't do that in the 1st 2 planes of 9/11
>>
>>I've only just discovered this reply
>>
>>>Again??? Whatever.
>>
>>Yeah, I think it was mentioned somewhere else of in another related thread.
>>
>>>You know why they didn't do that with the first 2 planes. If you don't you're real dense.
>>
>>That was unnecessarily rude of you, uncalled-for, and beneath you. I don't know when on the UT I've exhibited lack of intelligance. And it's you lacking if you don't know that lack of knowledge does not equate to lack of intelligance.
>>
>>>The Pennsylnavia plane passengers had heard what happened with the other flights and took the chance that trying something was a better option over doing nothing. They were right, but it just didn't work out well because control had been taken by then. That will never happen again, and you can take that to the bank.
>>
>>And the passengers on the 1st 2 planes first just sat by idly while the plane was taken over by men with wee knives?
>
>Let me lay it out plainly for you (something I believe you already know, thus the "dense" earlier)...
>
>Until 9/11 hijackings of airplanes had been basically re-destinations under duress. That is, a crew member or passenger was threatened and the threat-makers demand to go somewhere was met.

I guess that's true. Hmm, I managed to grasp that concept!

I still don't take kindly to unwarranted insults.

>The standard for all hijackings until then (ICAO-approved, I believe) was to remain passive and comply with the hijackers' wishes.

Oh I didn't know that all passengers were well versed in ICAO rules.

...