777kicksass From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2000, 668 posts, RR: 0 Posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 990 times:
It says on all news sites etc. that this hijacker wanted to crash the 737 into the US embassy in London. How in hell is that possible? It looks like about a 6 storey building, it would be literally impossible to pick it out in the vast expanses of London at high speed!
I think he was going for Canary Wharf, the tallest building in London, as that would be the only viable target!
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12932 posts, RR: 34
Reply 2, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 955 times:
I think his INTENTION was to fly it into a building, quite possibly the US embassy. However, given his flying record, I think he'd have difficulty finding London, let alone the US embassy there. My guess is that he'd have shot the crew and unless overpowered by pax, he would have probably ended up crashing it - unintentionally into the sea. Had he reached UK airspace, he would have been shot down by the RAF. That decision would have to be taken at least 5-10 miles before he flew over land, bearing in mind the plane's trajectory after it had been fired on.
However, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that in bringing a loaded weapon onto that plane, he meant harm. You simply cannot "accidentally" bring a loaded gun onto a plane and I think people who say Vasteras was chosen because it was out of the way and perceived not to be quite as tough on security are probably correct.
One hopes, given that there were 188 other pax, plus cabin crew, that it would not have worked out and bearing in mind the memory of 9/11, pax would have felt they had nothing to lose by taking him on. Furthermore, the crew being aware of a hijacking, would probably have instituted manoeuvres designed to induce weightlessness and throw the guy off his feet.
Standby87 From Switzerland, joined Jul 2001, 536 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 818 times:
The "hijacker's" lawyer says he has an explanation as to how the gun came to be in his washbag.
That made me think - I pack toothbrush, toothpaste, ear-plugs, eyeshade, comb and moisturiser in my wash-bag before a flight. Oh gosh, I keep forgetting to pack my loaded hand-gun. How forgetful can I be in my old age hey
I look forward to hearing this explanation in due course.
I have to say well done to Swedish security who have handled this situation well considering theirs is hardly the most dangerous country around. Mind you, they still don't know who shot their Prime Minister some years ago, but that's a different (and sad) story.
Backfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 804 times:
I think the phrase is "alleged hijacker". Since we have adopted a precedent of assuming innocence and proving guilt, and since none of you knows anything about the man or his motives (bar what you might have read in the odd paper) then I think speculating on which building he was or wasn't intending to dive-bomb is naive in the extreme.
PROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5644 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 784 times:
However, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that in bringing a loaded weapon onto that plane, he meant harm. You simply cannot "accidentally" bring a loaded gun onto a plane
Dunno. You often hear about people getting caught at security checkpoints with "forgotten" guns in their carry-ons. At least, that happens in the United States, where gun ownership is quite common and many states allow license holders to carry concealed firearms. I'd imagine that Sweden's firearms laws are more strict.
"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"