• The true effectiveness of Air Marshals
    69 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ridge;26274482]Mythbusters tested the windows, and it did not cause explosive decompression. [/QUOTE] mythbusters is not solid science and they didn't test the windows
[QUOTE=Ridge;26274482]Mythbusters tested the windows, and it did not cause explosive decompression.[/QUOTE] There. Not that it wasn't obvious to start with, but unless you've got something on the contrary now, you're just waaay out there.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;26274501]Wikipedia is about as reliable a source as 4chan.[/QUOTE] sources, they are listed below in the article and that's ridiculous, what are you on about
[QUOTE=GunFox;26271237]We could save a lot of money by firing the entirety of the TSA, but I'd hold onto the air marshals. Unlike the TSA security fuckwads, they are an intelligent method of combating terrorism. They are unseen and do not affect the every day life of your average citizen in any real capacity unless things go horribly wrong. In which case they could very well save your life.[/QUOTE] Well said.
[QUOTE=thisispain;26274491]and if a plane is plagued with metal fatigue, then i'm certain a bullet can cause it to crumple, which is another danger[/QUOTE] So can simply pressurizing the cabin...by the way, only one person died, a flight attendant who was not in her seat. [img]http://bees4work.pbworks.com/f/1266444459/B737-200-Aloha-Hawaii.jpg[/img] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243[/url]
[QUOTE=Lenni;26274488]Multi-layered specially designed polymer plastics are not weak nor fragile nor prone to give in to rapid air-flow.[/QUOTE] are you serious? planes fall apart to pieces when heavy decompression happens
[QUOTE=thisispain;26274491]and if a plane is plagued with metal fatigue, then i'm certain a bullet can cause it to crumple, which is another danger[/QUOTE] Oh God, the stupidity transcends my screen [editline]24th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=BANNED USER;26274501]Wikipedia is about as reliable a source as 4chan, anybody can edit the articles.[/QUOTE] And I thought we couldn't get any more stupid ITT.
[QUOTE=Lenni;26274538]Oh God, the stupidity transcends my screen [editline]24th November 2010[/editline] And I thought we couldn't get any more stupid ITT.[/QUOTE] if you're not going to actually argue the point, i don't see why i should respond to any of your posts
[QUOTE=thisispain;26274535]are you serious? planes fall apart to pieces when heavy decompression happens[/QUOTE] ... Yes, yes they do. Heavy decompression still isn't caused by a small hole.
[QUOTE=Ridge;26274482]Also, because civilians with CCW tend to practice with their weapon more than police officers, because they aren't limited to what the department can afford for training ammo and range time.[/QUOTE] why should some john doe with a CCW replace a LEO who has extensive counter-terrorism training, etc. and years of experience? allowing CCW in certain places just isn't smart
[QUOTE=Lenni;26274589]... Yes, yes they do. Heavy decompression still isn't caused by a small hole.[/QUOTE] ugh and you're calling me stupid
[QUOTE=thisispain;26274577]if you're not going to actually argue the point, i don't see why i should respond to any of your posts[/QUOTE] I could say "you're wrong" then.
[QUOTE=thisispain;26274504]mythbusters is not solid science and they didn't test the windows[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi1_1l7M8FA&feature=related[/url] @0:50 yes they did they also pressurized the cabin to maintain the difference in pressure that you'd find at high altitudes
[QUOTE=thisispain;26274504]mythbusters is not solid science[/QUOTE] But your word is.
[QUOTE=No_0ne;26274664][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi1_1l7M8FA&feature=related[/url] @0:50 yes they did[/QUOTE] that's not a proper test and i don't see how it even comes close to replicating an actual shot in an airplane [editline]24th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Lenni;26274651]I could say "you're wrong" then.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lenni;26274685]But your word is.[/QUOTE] well aren't you a 5 star debater you don't have to believe me, it's not even my decision, but it's not a reason to be a git on the internet
Looks like this thread has suffered some explosive decompression.
[QUOTE=dass;26274754]Looks like this thread has suffered some explosive decompression.[/QUOTE] i don't get it
[QUOTE=thisispain;26274725]that's not a proper test and i don't see how it even comes close to replicating an actual shot in an airplane[/QUOTE] And why not A bullet hole just isn't wide enough to cause pressure to equalize quickly enough to cause explosive decompression
[QUOTE=thisispain;26274725]that's not a proper test and i don't see how it even comes close to replicating an actual shot in an airplane[/QUOTE] How does it not? They pressurized the plane to what it would be at 30,000 feet, then shot a gun at a window, which put a hole in it, and nothing happened.
look this is getting way out of hand all i'm saying is that the danger of having a projectile weapon is real and that it's certainly not an ideal solution to have them on board
Having a firearm on a plane is a lot safer than having a plane in an office building, IMO...
[QUOTE=No_0ne;26274808]And why not A bullet hole just isn't wide enough to cause pressure to equalize quickly enough to cause explosive decompression[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Ridge;26274826]How does it not? They pressurized the plane to what it would be at 30,000 feet, then shot a gun at a window, which put a hole in it, and nothing happened.[/QUOTE] again, the idea is not that the bullet hole will cause decompression, the idea is that the bullet will create or exacerbate a malfunction on board. bullets are unpredictable and planes are unpredictable, it's a dangerous mix [editline]24th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Ridge;26274901]Having a firearm on a plane is a lot safer than having a plane in a building, IMO...[/QUOTE] well yeah but that's not the point having a grenade on a plane is safer than having a plane in a building as well.
[QUOTE=thisispain;26274242]what, this is quite simple, if a window is knocked out at a high altitude, air pressure will be forced to equalize at rapid speeds [editline]24th November 2010[/editline] explosive decompression doesn't actually mean something explodes btw[/QUOTE] The windows are made of like diamond
[QUOTE=Ridge;26274901]Having a firearm on a plane is a lot safer than having a plane in an office building, IMO...[/QUOTE] leave it to the air marshalls to have the guns then we don't need people with CCWs carrying on planes
Look what I found, a proper source from the [b]SMITHSONIAN[/b] [url]http://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/Need-to-Know-Cabin-Pressure.html[/url] [release] “Hollywood has fostered an image of rapid cabin depressurization that has come to be known as explosive decompression. Someone on the ground shoots a hole into the side of an aircraft and it results in total loss of cabin pressure with paper, food trays, and baggage flying everywhere.” Right, that’s what we’re talking about. [b]“Reality simply does not work that way,” explains Lombardo. “A bullet hole in a cabin wall would have no perceived effect on cabin pressure….[/b] A bullet hole is far smaller than the opening of the outflow valve [through which cabin air escapes during routine depressurization]. In fact, such a hole would account for less air leakage than what is normally lost around door and window seals.” That’s not to say sudden decompression isn’t a danger. The FAA (in its Advisory Circular 61-107A) provides a helpful chart showing just how long crewmembers are able to perform flight duties with an insufficient supply of oxygen. In an aircraft at 22,000 feet, passengers and crew would have 5 minutes of “useful consciousness” after rapid decompression. But at 43,000 feet, the time drops to a mere 5 seconds, hardly long enough to don an oxygen mask. (The same circular notes “One pilot does not need to wear and use an oxygen mask if both pilots are at the controls and each pilot has a quick donning type of oxygen mask that can be placed on the face with one hand from the ready position and be properly secured, sealed, and operational within 5 seconds. If one pilot of a two-pilot crew is away from the controls, then the pilot that is at the controls must wear and use an oxygen mask that is secured and sealed.”)[/release] So the whole Hollywood take on explosive decompression is just silly, but it can still be harmful to passengers, but not necessarily lethal. And I'm sure this will pretty much STOP the side topic of explosive decompression.
[QUOTE=thisispain;26274878]look this is getting way out of hand all i'm saying is that the danger of having a projectile weapon is real and that it's certainly not an ideal solution to have them on board[/QUOTE] Better an officer has a gun than just a bad person
[QUOTE=JDK721;26274956]leave it to the air marshalls to have the guns then we don't need people with CCWs carrying on planes[/QUOTE] But you don't have to pay law abiding civilians to stop a terrorist. Think of the savings.
[QUOTE=Ridge;26275001]But you don't have to pay law abiding civilians to stop a terrorist. Think of the savings.[/QUOTE] I do have to pay for the inexperience of the civilians
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;26275048]I do have to pay for the inexperience of the civilians[/QUOTE] You mean like higher insurance rates in your state? Yeah, that sucks...
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;26274501]Wikipedia is about as reliable a source as 4chan, anybody can edit the articles. Shit, I edited an article a year ago and only just recently did they change it back.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html[/url] Is [i]Nature[/i] good enough for you? (If it isn't, you're an idiot.)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.