sci.physics

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:58:56 -0500, * US * wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:17:10 -0500, handguns@ wrote:
>
>>... would have ordered a domestic,
>>civilian airliner shot down just for being hijacked ...
>
>You'd have to be stupid and malicious to do that
>rather than just secure the cabins, as Bush had been
>advised to do but refused.

And who gave Bush that advice?

>Not only did Bush refuse to warn the pilots, he made
>sure they'd be vulnerable, instead.

And I've shown you that you are wrong about that too.

Actually, it was the FAA, after no one bothered for 40 years to carry
a gun:

"According to FAA officials, the rule required airlines to apply to
the agency for their pilots to carry guns in cockpits and for the
airlines to put pilots through an agency-approved firearms training
course.

The aviation agency said, however, that throughout the life of the
rule not a single . air carrier took advantage of it, effectively
rendering it "moot," according to one agency official.

"In the past, FAA regulations permitted pilots to carry firearms in
the cockpit provided they completed an FAA-approved training program
and were trained properly by the airlines," FAA spokesman Paul
Takemoto told WND in a voice-mail message. "That was never put into
effect because no requests for those training programs were ever made.
…" "

To repeat:

"NO REQUESTS FOR THOSE TRAINING PROGRAMS WERE EVER MADE"

No pilot would have been armed on 9/11 regardless of the status of the
regulations.