>>>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. The standard for all hijackings until then (ICAO-approved, I believe) was to remain passive and comply with the hijackers' wishes.
>The people on the first 2 9/11 planes (3, actually) were simply complying with that standard.
>The fourth plane was in process of doing so too when passengers' cellphones started going off and informing the callees that planes had been hijacked AND FLOWN INTO BUILDINGS. It is this prospect that made those passengers act. But unfortunately, by then, the hijackers were already in the cabin and had already killed the pilot.
>
>Since then the "rules" of hijackings have changed considerably, officially or not. Cockpit doors are now hardened steel, opening the door in-flight is strictly controlled, and passengers - as proved by the "shoe-bomber" incident - are ready and willing to "address" any untoward behaviour on a flight.


One doesn't have to take over the cockpit to cause damage. There are dozens of people in the cabin area that the hijackerS can torture/kill.