Fighter jets escort Seattle-bound flight in hijack scare

A Seattle-bound flight from Hawaii landed safely, and on time, Thursday night after U.S. military jets were ordered to escort it because of hijacking concerns, NBC has learned. 

FBI sources say the Honolulu field office of the bureau received a call, from the ground, stating that an individual aboard the flight was going to hijack the plane.


The North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD, called in fighter jets from the Oregon National Guard which flew alongside Alaska Air flight 819 from Kona until it landed at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport at about 7 p.m. (10 p.m. ET).

FBI agents met the plane when it landed in Seattle, and the individual was taken off the plane without incident, according to NBC-affiliate in Seattle, KING 5.

One individual is in FBI custody at this hour being questioned by agents, the report said.

According to Alaska Airlines officials, that individual slept through most of the flight, nothing out of the ordinary happened onboard and the crew did not perceive any danger.

The FBI says there is also no danger at the Seattle airport.

 

Discuss this post

Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3

Ex boyfriend or girlfriend made the call? Send them a bill then send them to jail.

  • 37 votes
#1 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:00 AM EST

I think the suspect had greeted his friend Jack while on the plane, shouting 'Hi, Jack' - thus a 'hijack' scare.

  • 13 votes
#1.1 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:21 AM EST

If the person did not do anything then what cause did the FBI have for taking him into custody. This is a prime example of what has gone wrong with our justice system since 9/11. The FBI, or any law enforcement agency should not have the right to detain an American citizen without having probable cause to believe they have committed a crime. An phone call making an accusation without any evidence to back it up is not probable cause to detain someone. This person needs to be released and the person who made the call detained and questioned to determine why they made the call and what if any evidence they have. If they can not produce any evidence then that person should be charged.

  • 45 votes
#1.2 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:25 AM EST

JS in SD

They have probable cause because someone named him. He was on the plane so they detain him until an investigation is completed.

  • 13 votes
#1.3 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:38 AM EST

it was Manti Te'o invisible girlfriend coming for a visit !

  • 23 votes
#1.4 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:58 AM EST

@starbuck49 - An uncorroborated accusation by a single individual that is not backed up by any evidence should not be probable cause to detain someone anymore than a single individual simply saying you are dealing drugs with no corroboration or physical evidence to back it up is probable cause for the police to search your home. The standards for what constitutes probable cause are a little higher than just a single person with an unsupported accusation - that was until after 9/11 and unless it is the FBI and they start throwing around the word terrorism. Then it seems they do not even need probable cause to detain you anymore.

  • 20 votes
#1.5 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:24 AM EST

JS in SD-it depends upon the situation. If an individual may be an immediate threat to himself/herself and/or others, the military or FBI will detain or diffuse him/her first. If you call and say that your neighbors are selling drugs out of their back door, the police usually will use surveillance or informants to gather more evidence. If you call and say your neighbor is beating his/her kid, they will go in aggressively.

  • 6 votes
#1.6 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:01 AM EST

Pay attention to the laws our government is passing. Today you can be held without cause, no charges filed and held for as long as the arresting authorities want to hold you. Our President promises that will not happen to the citizens of the United States, but it is the law!

  • 20 votes
#1.7 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:40 AM EST

Starbuck, the only thing to investigate here is the phone call.

  • 11 votes
#1.8 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:57 AM EST

This is always a double-edged sword. Had they not done anything and this turns out to be a real threat, the same people jumping on them would have asked why they didn't do anything when they had information.

Think about it.

  • 13 votes
#1.9 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:57 AM EST
Comment author avatarRon B-2757074Expand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

JS in SD, you must be a jail-house lawyer. You don't know sh!t. Law enforcement only needs reasonable suspicion to detain. A phone call indicating that someone is about to commit a crime is reasonable suspicion. Probable cause is required for searches that would normally require a warrant.

  • 6 votes
#1.10 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:13 AM EST

If the FBI had gotten a tip and NOT done anything and the guy had pulled something you'd be one of the people crying How Could They not Do Anything. Damned if they do damned if they don't.

  • 12 votes
#1.11 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:15 AM EST

Probable cause would be required for searches of persons and automobiles that would normally require a warrant is what I should have stated.

  • 2 votes
#1.12 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:37 AM EST

I agree with stonepipe2. It sounds very much as if somebody had it in for the hijacking "suspect", and an ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend would be probable suspects. So too would a disgruntled, former employee of the "suspect".

Man or women, I'll be he [or she] was one surprised person when they arrived in Seattle.

Stupid stunt. Hope they find the caller.

  • 7 votes
#1.14 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:09 AM EST

If the person did not do anything then what cause did the FBI have for taking him into custody.

I'm sure it was precautionary. They have to check it out, see if he's carrying any box-cutters, ceramic knives, etc. At the minimum, they probably want information regarding who is angry enough with him to target him in this manner.

  • 4 votes
#1.15 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:11 AM EST

JS in SD

@starbuck49 - An uncorroborated accusation by a single individual that is not backed up by any evidence should not be probable cause to detain someone anymore than a single individual simply saying you are dealing drugs with no corroboration or physical evidence to back it up is probable cause for the police to search your home.

Yes it is probable cause. It's unfortunate but must be done.

You speak of physical evidence. This takes time. More time than a hijacker taking over a plane and flying it into a building. Post 911, we just cannot take the chance.

The only way to go about it is, interrogate the guy on the plane & the caller. If they don't know who the caller was, the guy on the plane most likely will have a good idea of that. Find out if it was a scorned lover etc... and simply take legal action from there. This is all we can do nowadays.

Again, post 911, we just cannot take these chances anymore. We are not worried about a single individual as much as all the other "Innocent" passengers. I wouldn't mind the lay-over if I were a passenger. I would give the FBI Kudos for doing their job correctly...

  • 10 votes
#1.16 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:12 AM EST

Confussed: John McCain co-wrote the legislation that passed that you can be arrested, held for an undeterminable amount of time, without telling you the reason, also in that same legislation, you can be put to work for the gov't without any compensation. I wish I still had that info saved I'd share where I found it.

  • 4 votes
#1.17 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:16 AM EST

Who else wrote it?

    #1.18 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:47 AM EST

    Bet it was a passenger who was upset with the additional fees for bags...

    Probably called in the threat on their cell phone, while sitting in plane..

    • 2 votes
    #1.19 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:22 AM EST

    MontereyJim

    Government hooplaa, need the practice for the civil unrest on the horizon.........just sayin.

    And I'm saying enough with the paranoia. Go back to your bunker.

    GM Creek

    • 5 votes
    #1.20 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:39 AM EST

    PBgeorgia,

    McCain did not write legislation concerning people being put to work for no compensation. You may be thinking of Executive Order 11000. http://www.disastercenter.com/laworder/11000.htm or Executive Order 12656 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12656.html . Both provide for wages and benefits. The Federal Government cannot institute forced labor without compensation because that is know as slavery and it is outlawed. If the Federal Government ever DID try to do such a thing then that is why we were given the right to bear arms and why nobody should want that right infringed.

    • 3 votes
    #1.21 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:40 AM EST

    even if McCain had not screwed the Constitution six ways to Sunday, the fed would have the right to detain ANY SUSPECT for up to 72 hours for questioning and investigation. Therefore, under the old rules or the new rules, they were within proper conduct to take the suspect into custody.

    The issue I have severe questions with is this: What good were the escort fighter planes? What was their purpose? What were they going to do? If there was a highjacker onboard, were they going to shoot the plane down killing all on board to eliminate one potential threat? Seems to me, the more valorous approach would have been to have the pilots on alert, ready to scramble if and when they were made aware of an actual threat, i.e. the plane deviated from its charted course. Now we have blown a million or so in military budget putting these pilots and their birds in the air for ... uhhhh ... oh, yeh. Something that would not have been made moot once the plane landed safely at its destination.

    • 2 votes
    #1.22 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:41 AM EST

    Every day I get up and say a prayer. It usually goes something like this.

    "Thank you for another day. Thank you that I don't have to get legal advice from self-important posters on the internet. Amen."

    • 6 votes
    #1.23 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:08 AM EST

    wordsmith,

    What good were the escort fighter planes? What was their purpose? What were they going to do? If there was a highjacker onboard, were they going to shoot the plane down killing all on board to eliminate one potential threat?

    If the plane were taken over by a hijacker with the expectation that it was going to be used as a missile then yes, shooting it down would be the correct action.

    Seems to me, the more valorous approach would have been to have the pilots on alert, ready to scramble if and when they were made aware of an actual threat, i.e. the plane deviated from its charted course.

    The jets escorted it because it could have deviated right before landing and been used as a missile before any jets could be scrambled. What if it had been used to kamikazee a Naval ship en route? You would just sit back and wait to see what happens? What kind of idiot are you? I'm glad you aren't in charge of defense.

    • 2 votes
    #1.24 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:08 AM EST

    Don't buy into the - after 9/11 stuff...there were multiple times pre-9/11 that fighter jets were scrambled for off course planes...hell, just read about golfer Payne Stewart.

    We should be questioning why they weren't scrambled on 9/11...oh yeah, we were doing simulations of the exact same thing that day, but we'd never thought of it happening before, or so we're told.

    As for the detention of someone - 9/11 has allowed for things like that to happen.

    • 1 vote
    #1.25 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:18 AM EST

    TSA groped my peanuts, gerd dermert!!

    • 1 vote
    #1.26 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:20 AM EST

    Also, with the rules of the cockpit being locked while the plane is in flight, how would someone take over control of the airliner?

    Why would there be a need to shoot it down if the pilot and co-pilot are the only ones who could be in the cockpit?

    A hijacker cannot take control of a plane anymore, they can only take control of the passengers on the plane.

    • 2 votes
    #1.27 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:26 AM EST

    sleepinsadie

    Also, with the rules of the cockpit being locked while the plane is in flight, how would someone take over control of the airliner?

    Why would there be a need to shoot it down if the pilot and co-pilot are the only ones who could be in the cockpit?

    A hijacker cannot take control of a plane anymore, they can only take control of the passengers on the plane.

    What makes you think that they cannot pull open the emergency exits?

    Possibly have an explosive?

    Hold a ceramic knife to the throat of the stewardess?

    Take that ceramic knife and start slicing into the wiring system....

    A 250lb muscle head can kick the cockpit door in.....

    There are a "LOT" of ways to create havoc on a plane. Especially if you're a disgruntled airline mechanic knowing all the ins & outs of a planes operations........

    Payne Stewarts jet was slightly steered away from creating a disaster by the fighter jets tail winds due to everyone on board were dead from the plane decompressing...Yeah, I do remember that one. I think it went down in the ocean or something if I recall...

    • 1 vote
    #1.28 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:44 AM EST

    sleepinsadie,

    Nothing is foolproof. There are scenarios in which someone could gain access to the cockpit. Perhaps while flight attendants enter the cockpit a hijacker takes them by surprise? Perhaps a series of executions on board or maybe an accomplice on the ground takes the pilot's family hostage and threatens to kill them in order to gain access? Better to be safe than sorry.

    • 2 votes
    #1.29 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:00 AM EST

    GM Creek Dog - go back and look at your earlier post, as you talked about a hijacker taking over a plane also.

    Do you really think a person can kick open a cockpit door? I thought regulations were put in place strengthening them so that couldn't happen along with inside locks?

    Please tell me how a hijacker cutting wires or opening emergency exits would allow them to control the plane and fly it into any destination (such as a building)?

    Exactly, they could create havoc on the plane, but not take it over and fly it to or into anything...how would shooting it down remedy that?

    Payne Stewart's jet crashed into a field on American soil.

    Let's be realistic, if a hijacker cannot take over the controls of flying the plane, it does absolutely nothing to have fighter jets flying next to it - any hijacker could cause the same havoc you spoke of with the fighter jets flying next to it. They provide no additional safety to anyone anywhere.

      #1.30 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:00 AM EST

      Ron B - don't you think flight control would be in contact with the pilot who would be able to let them know they still have control of the plane?

      It's a false sense of "safety" and/or "security".

        #1.31 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:03 AM EST

        Hey Creek, it's impossible to open an emergency exit in flight on modern passenger planes. This link will explain why.

        http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/getline/2005-08-08-ask-the-captain_x.htm

        • 2 votes
        #1.32 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:13 AM EST

        Exactly, they could create havoc on the plane, but not take it over and fly it to or into anything...how would shooting it down remedy that?

        They are not going to shoot it down as long as they contact with the pilots and they are not under duress. The fighters are there in case they somehow manage to enter the cockpit and take control. They are there as a last resort, to handle things if the worst happens. No one really believes they are going to kill 250+ people just because some lunatic is holding a knife on someone, do they? But worst case scenario, you send the jets up when the pilot reports some lunatic trying to kick in the cockpit door. It's better to have them on station and not need them, than it would be to have to send them up after you lose contact with a plane.

        • 2 votes
        #1.33 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:20 AM EST

        I understand that Chris...but like I said, it's a false sense of security or safety. If I'm on a plane and nothing is going on (such as on this flight) and all of a sudden there are fighter jets on both sides, that would make me think - wtf, and be more concerned they might shoot us down than anything else.

        And like I said - we should be questioning why it didn't happen on 9/11, as it happened before and after, but oddly, not that day.

        • 1 vote
        #1.34 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:37 AM EST

        sleepinsadie

        You aren't letting it sink in. You don't know what could take place that would allow a hijacker to gain access to the cockpit. You don't know if the hijacker could have already been in the cockpit and forcing the crew to speak normally with air control and denying a hijacking had taken place. You know what they say about when you assume. As I stated, and is the general rule in safety, better to be safe than sorry.

        Just stop trying to defend your position. Have the class to admit when you are wrong.

        • 2 votes
        #1.35 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:41 AM EST

        Ron B - I've let it sink in and I have thought about things...like I said, I believe it's a false sense of security and safety.

        Nowhere did I say it shouldn't be done, I just questioned what it provides - that's two (2) different discussions.

        And bro, defend my position? I'm just having a conversation on a messageboard - I'm not here to put people down or try to prove I'm right and you're wrong, I like the exchange of ideas with people who think differently than I think, if I only want to talk to people who agree with me all the time, life would be boring, I probably wouldn't learn much and I'd have to spend a crap-load of time conversing with the mirror.

        While I agree that there could be different scenarios for things to happen - I'm pretty sure that if there were a sophisticated project to do it, there wouldn't be some idiot giving it away with a phone call to make sure the flight is intercepted by fighter jets, as that would be totally counter-intelligent to what they would have to do to gain control of a plane and fly it where they want to.

        Using common sense, not simply assuming, can be useful.

          #1.36 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:50 AM EST

          "Exactly, they could create havoc on the plane, but not take it over and fly it to or into anything...how would shooting it down remedy that?"

          IM NOT PLANNING ON DOING THIS BUT IF and only IF I wanted to take the cockpit of the plane, which i will never do, i'd find out who will be piloting, see if either of the pilots has family, then have someone hold the family hostage until the cockpit is open. That's the most obvious way to get in the cockpit...

            #1.37 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:12 PM EST

            Also if a single pilot is contacted and hears his/her family is in fact taken hostage, he/she could be instructed not to tell anyone and even lie to the rest of the crew/passengers. No one but this single pilot would know until the actual cockpit is taken... if this is done at the right time the plane could reach its target before any jets escort it. The plane would of course have to have a flight plan relatively near whatever intended target the attacker is after. Ive been watching too much 24.

              #1.38 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:24 PM EST

              Hey Ryan - I understand that scenario and in that scenario, wouldn't the pilot have to know before the hijacker could even be in the cockpit and then shouldn't the pilot have enough intelligence to let flight control know what's going on before the hijacker was in there? Or wouldn't you think there's some code wording a pilot would use if they were compromised or that there's an alarm on the cockpit door?

              Let's be realistic - a hijacker would have to communicate that he has the family somehow and shouldn't the pilot confirm this before allowing anyone in, if they even allowed them in?

                #1.39 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:25 PM EST

                First of all, how would you find out in advance who will be piloting the plane? Second, the pilot isn't going to open the cockpit, because as soon as he does his family will be dead and so will everyone on the plane and probably hundreds on the ground.

                • 1 vote
                #1.40 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:32 PM EST

                "Hey Ryan - I understand that scenario and in that scenario, wouldn't the pilot have to know before the hijacker could even be in the cockpit and then shouldn't the pilot have enough intelligence to let flight control know what's going on before the hijacker was in there? Or wouldn't you think there's some code wording a pilot would use if they were compromised or that there's an alarm on the cockpit door?

                Let's be realistic - a hijacker would have to communicate that he has the family somehow and shouldn't the pilot confirm this before allowing anyone in, if they even allowed them in?"

                Pilots like the rest of us have cell phones usually. The person taking hostages would call the pilot, prove he does in fact have his family (and more than likely prove he/she is she is willing to do some messed up things), and tell the pilot if anything is done to stop them then the family (or whats left) will be... uh.. even worse... like tortured and killed. If this is done close enough to the target, the person holding hostages would explain there's most likely not enough time to stop him from messing up the family, which could be true, and if he even hears a siren nearby, well, he will "use his imagination" or something else cliche and easy to understand. This is a pretty messed up convo but if someone threatens to cut our ur loved ones eyes or something and the only practical way to stop it is by opening the cockpit door then it gets a lot harder to tell people things.

                "First of all, how would you find out in advance who will be piloting the plane? Second, the pilot isn't going to open the cockpit, because as soon as he does his family will be dead and so will everyone on the plane and probably hundreds on the ground."

                I cant answer that first one but I wouldnt doubt its impossible.

                If one hears their family getting tortured to death anyways then one might take any chance one has. The person holding hostages doesnt exactly have to wait on anything other than making sure they are alive long enough to take the cockpit. Then of course theres proly some agent on the plane that could kill the hijackers, but they got the cockpit open.. which was my original argument.

                  #1.41 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:40 PM EST

                  I cant answer that first one but I wouldnt doubt its possible.***

                    #1.42 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:47 PM EST

                    Ryanb - yeah bro, maybe a little too much 24...please don't tell me the "b" stands for Bauer - hahaha

                    Wouldn't you think if they went to those measures that they are going to kill your family anyway? And that, as stanscript said, then it would be your family, you and all the passengers that will be dead?

                    And you really think in that instance if you alerted authorities that they'd go sirens blaring to where your family is held just so the hijackers accomplices are alerted?

                    Wouldn't you be more apt to say - You're gonna kill my family anyway, why would I let your accomplices here on the plane kill me, my crew, the passengers and possibly people on the ground?

                      #1.43 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:03 PM EST

                      sleepinsadie,

                      Wouldn't you think if they went to those measures that they are going to kill your family anyway? And that, as stanscript said, then it would be your family, you and all the passengers that will be dead?

                      You have no idea how a person would react. How many people are abducted and murdered every year by someone who pulls up in a car, points a gun at their victim, tells them to get in the car or they will shoot and the victim complies. Even though the victim fears or knows they are likely to die if they get in the car, they comply. Why? Part of them hopes that if they comply things will turn out alright. Would I comply? Never. Would you comply? You sound as though you wouldn't. Guess what? Not everyone is like me or you. People are conditioned to comply. From childhood, we are told throughout school, "There is never a good reason to fight" and we are punished if we fight back against an attacking student. How many students get suspended or expelled for fighting, even if they were fighting in self defense? "Let the proper authorities handle it", we are told. That is why 9/11 was so successful. Our society has created generations of victims. We should strive to be like ants or bees which swarm a perceived threat to the safety of the colony. But, we can't. People would call it barbaric vigilantiism. Stop assuming that people will always do what you think is the right thing.

                      You also seem to think that the cockpit door is never opened. Did you not read about the Air France flight that went down in the Atlantic a couple of years ago? It was just revealed that the pilot was not even in the cockpit when the in-flight emergency occurred. How could he have not been in the cockpit if the cockpits are locked up for the flight?

                        #1.44 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:26 PM EST

                        "Ryanb - yeah bro, maybe a little too much 24...please don't tell me the "b" stands for Bauer - hahaha"

                        Only Bauer can stop them lmao. and no the b doesnt stand for Bauer lol

                        "Wouldn't you think if they went to those measures that they are going to kill your family anyway?"

                        Most likely, but your left with a guarantee they will be killed in the worst ways imaginable or a small chance they wont. The person holding the hostages could just threaten to kill them quickly rather than...

                        "And that, as stanscript said, then it would be your family, you and all the passengers that will be dead?"

                        Hundreds of passengers dead + collateral or the people you love and care about the most being tortured to death. Not everyone might be willing to let them go like that. I cant say I would when I imagine being in that actual situation. Im not trying to be offensive here but it really is not an easy decision. At least not for everyone. Its a good thing im not a pilot.

                        "And you really think in that instance if you alerted authorities that they'd go sirens blaring to where your family is held just so the hijackers accomplices are alerted?"

                        Does it matter in this hypothetical situation? They show up or they dont. Either way it would most likely be too late no matter how it played out for the hostages. Again if the plane is close enough to the target I doubt they would have time to show up with sirens or some type of highly trained swat team if it can be planned so.

                          #1.45 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:36 PM EST

                          "You also seem to think that the cockpit door is never opened. Did you not read about the Air France flight that went down in the Atlantic a couple of years ago? It was just revealed that the pilot was not even in the cockpit when the in-flight emergency occurred. How could he have not been in the cockpit if the cockpits are locked up for the flight?"

                          Another good point. Maybe the pilot goes to take a piss. The hostages could just be used as a backup plan. As for knowing who's piloting the plane before it's in the air, you can find pilots in airports before flights at times. or after flights. It would take a little pre-planning and such to find the right pilot, but get a few drinks in, buddy up with the pilot, ask him where hes flying. Thats an oversimplification more than likely but pilots have regular lives like us too

                            #1.46 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:40 PM EST

                            RonB - I understand your breakdown of the human psyche, but do expect more from professionally trained pilots, a great percentage of whom have military training, to be different than the person on the street having a gun pulled on them.

                            You talk of assuming, but you're assuming they'll react the same.

                            9/11 was successful because of many reasons, but I don't want to get into my thoughts on that.

                            Though in your description of ants/bees, it made me think of rats and put the Pearl Jam song, Rats, in my head - so, thanks for that...you know...they don't scury when something bigger comes their way, they pack themselves together.

                            Your using the Air France flight to compare to this is totally different. Did that happen in the US? No. Do they have to follow US regulations? Don't know, probably not. Etc...

                            There is a major difference to me between a flight where some moron calls in and says there's a hijacker on board and then the pilot is contacted (which I do have to guess happened) and he says nothing is wrong or happening on board and the flight continues on like that and one where a flight goes off course and the pilot can't be contacted or they know the cockpit has been compromised, etc.

                            Do you see every situation the same?

                              #1.47 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:49 PM EST

                              "RonB - I understand your breakdown of the human psyche, but do expect more from professionally trained pilots, a great percentage of whom have military training, to be different than the person on the street having a gun pulled on them."

                              Not trying to gang up on you seeing as you weren't addressing me on this one anyways, but to further express my point: if somehow a terrorist did get on the plane, with a gun, pointed at my head, I would be scared. Even if it is certain death despite training, I could die that way to help save lives. But as for pulling a gun or worse on those i care about the most.... well lets just say im done with this convo for now. Jack Bauer on the other hand would tackle the attacker after impossibly dodging bullets, maybe punch him multiple times, and throw him off the plane xD

                                #1.48 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:01 PM EST

                                Ryanb(auer)...well, of course there's always what if's and what could's, but I'm dealin with this situation as it is...if I knew hijackers had taken over and the cockpit was compromised, of course I'd say drop that plane in an f'n second.

                                And I don't feel ganged up on - as I previously stated, I like the exchange of thoughts with people who will actually carry on a "conversation" (if this can be called that) who have differing ideas/thoughts.

                                I understand what you're saying, who wouldn't feel some negative thought (scared, etc) with a gun pointed at their head? (well except for Bauer or possibly Rambo)

                                  #1.49 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:04 PM EST

                                  You talk of assuming, but you're assuming they'll react the same.

                                  No. I think in various worst case scenarios. I don't think about how it's not possible. The hijacking scenarios I described are unlikely but not impossible. A good defense is planning for as many contingencies as possible and then leaving room for the unknown. It is irresponsible to trust that people will always follow protocol or react in a manner that is in the best interest of others.

                                  Did you read about the little girl in Philadelphia who was abducted from school? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262761/Ive-stolen-Moment-Nailla-Robinson-5-taken-school-stranger-Muslim-style-garment.html The school personnel broke common protocol and released the child into the custody of someone who was not a parent or a designated representative.

                                    #1.50 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:11 PM EST

                                    Bro - I think of different scenarios too - which I believe I've expressed in my posts. I also believe that different scenarios need to be treated differently.

                                    Of course it's good to be prepared for as many possible scenarios as you can be and in the case of airline hijacking to always think it's the worst first and work backwards from there. But I also think once you have info and a knowledge of what's going on, you adjust your thinking.

                                    Yes, I've read that Philly story and its follow-ons. The school administration and whoever was involved in allowing that little girl to be taken by someone who said she was the girl's mom but provided a different name than the mother's name and was not verified as being her (as she had on the niqab) should be fired and never allowed to be responsible for children again. I'm curious as to why they've questioned the father twice also.

                                      #1.51 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:20 PM EST

                                      But I also think once you have info and a knowledge of what's going on, you adjust your thinking.

                                      Agreed, adjust your thinking but do not let your guard down. Do not assume that a situation will remain controlled until the flight is on the ground and the threat neutralized. I firmly believe that the fighter escort was appropriate even though it turned out to be unnecessary.

                                        #1.52 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:53 PM EST

                                        I agree with not letting the guard down...but after talking to the pilot and understanding that there is absolutely nothing going on on the plane out of the ordinary, it's still on its expected course, etc, they could have pulled the fighters back.

                                        I think it was appropriate to scramble them and find out what was going on, but after understanding there was absolutely no situation on the plane, they are completely unnecessary.

                                        By the way - very cool pic in your avatar.

                                          #1.53 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:00 PM EST

                                          If the phone call turns out to be a prank, the caller should be billed for the fuel for the escort fighters.

                                            #1.54 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:44 PM EST

                                            RonB: If I can find this "piece of legislation", co-written by John McCain and (drawing a blank), I will send you a message and you can read it. My boss showed it to me several months ago. It's alarming. Also, on gov't property in a western state, recently, I will find the link to this also, several enclosed 53' trailers containing cuffs and shackles... this is the government's property. I will see if I can retrieve the info and send to you when I have time.

                                              #1.55 - Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:33 AM EST
                                              Reply

                                              Sounds like someone was playing a really sick, stupid prank that could really have put people in danger. Trace that call and bust that "informer"!

                                              • 16 votes
                                              Reply#2 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:10 AM EST

                                              women and there fatal attraction bull@!$%# !

                                              you to get even screw one his friends and tape it, but to have jets scrambled to intercept the plane that they have full authority to shoot down in open water is a little over the top !

                                              • 6 votes
                                              #2.1 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:02 AM EST

                                              Did I miss something? I didn't see anywhere in the article that the caller was a woman. Your comment, Mike, is a little over the top!

                                              • 3 votes
                                              #2.2 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:18 AM EST

                                              Mike is over the top, and somewhat ignorant. It would be " their", not "there". I think someone has a problem with women, and blames them for all of his troubles!

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #2.3 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:50 AM EST

                                              Mike's syntax and sentence structure could be used in a book on journalism...in the chapter covering what not to do.

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #2.4 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:10 AM EST
                                              Reply

                                              I could never understand why fighter jets are scrambled to escort a potentially hijacked plane. What are they going to do, shoot it down and kill all the passengers?

                                              • 11 votes
                                              #3 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:12 AM EST

                                              Norad DOES have that authority now. That was decided after 911 when no one knew who would give that order. Now the generals at NORAD have authorization.

                                              • 13 votes
                                              #3.1 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:15 AM EST

                                              yes. as a matter of fact, they could shoot it down...and what a perfect flight to shoot down before it gets to a populated area.

                                              • 8 votes
                                              #3.2 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:23 AM EST

                                              Yep, they will now take down a plane and everyone on it to save people in buildings or on the ground. If there had been authorization and enough warning on 9/11, they likely would have done the same thing.

                                              The idea is that killing a few hundred on the plane is better then having a few thousand on the ground dead.

                                              • 8 votes
                                              #3.3 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:25 AM EST

                                              a few witnesses say that's what they thought they saw happen to flight 94 or 91? in Pen

                                              • 5 votes
                                              #3.4 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:49 AM EST

                                              Aim it toward a highrise in downtown Seattle full of office workers and that's exactly what they will do. Where were you during the terrorist attacks in 2001??

                                              • 3 votes
                                              #3.5 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:15 AM EST

                                              dear alkyda Maybe. If that had happened on 9-11, the death toll would have been about 1/3 of what actuall happened. Tragic, but the loss of life and real estate would have been lessened. And Bush still could have invaded Iraq.

                                              • 3 votes
                                              #3.6 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:28 AM EST

                                              I could never understand why fighter jets are scrambled to escort a potentially hijacked plane. What are they going to do, shoot it down and kill all the passengers?

                                              Yes.

                                              • 6 votes
                                              #3.7 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:47 AM EST

                                              I could never understand why fighter jets are scrambled to escort a potentially hijacked plane. What are they going to do, shoot it down and kill all the passengers?

                                              If it looks like it's going to be crashed into a huge building in a major metropolitan area with thousands of deaths resulting, then yes, they are going to shoot it down and kill all the passengers.

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #3.8 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:30 AM EST

                                              Yes.

                                              And many are convinced that is what happened to Flight 93 in PA.

                                              The first news reports are not consistent with the "let's roll" story. First reports said several times that debris were scattered over large distance. Then that info vanished from the news, period. Forever.

                                              I doubt that the "let's roll" callers were able to use cell phones for any length of time at that speed and altitude, based on what I know of the technology. I doubt that the "let's roll" group would have been aware of the other hijackings and crashes. This all happened too fast for them to have the information. I doubt that the "let's roll" group would have spent time calling relatives prior to their attack on the cockpit.

                                              Bush almost let his justification for taking the aircraft down slip out in a press conference statement later, but he apparently caught himself when he realized they were asking a different question.

                                                #3.9 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:20 AM EST

                                                Where were the jets on 9-11? One of the planes flew halfway across the country AFTER being hijacked and flew into WTC and no jets were dispatched. And they've always had authority to shoot down a hijacked plane or one with incapacitated pilots. When Payne Stewart's jet crashed a total of 5 AF jets were dispatched to intercept that plane to see why it was off course (from Florida to Dallas) and did not answer controllers. Two of them escorted it until it was determined that it would exhaust it's fuel and crash into a unpopulated area in S Dakota. This incident occurred in 1999, and at that time they said they would have shot the plane down if it had been likely to crash into a populated area.

                                                  #3.10 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:33 AM EST

                                                  Yes, they will. Sad scenario, but it's the world Muslims have forced us to live in. Might be better to shoot it down than have it crash into a building potentially killing thousands. Unfortunately, there are no good options available. As far as waiting for something bad to happen on a plane before arrests are made ... no can do. All you'll have is a few hundred dead bodies. Law enforcement MUST be proactive regarding this sort of thing. Being reactive means nothing but always being too late.

                                                  • 1 vote
                                                  #3.11 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:40 AM EST

                                                  Pray Hard - this is not "the world Muslims have forced us to live in," as we scrambled fighter jets to planes multiple times before 9/11 when we had no idea about Muslim terrorists...unless you think Payne Stewart was a "golf terrorist".

                                                  You should be questioning why we didn't scramble them that day - the only recorded day we didn't when we had planes go off radar.

                                                  And inMYday, I do believe you are right - if you look at the wreckage in the field and how it's strewn over miles, there's no way that plane crashed in that field.

                                                    #3.12 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:41 AM EST

                                                    @Sleepinsadie,

                                                    Actually, while what pray hard said was not politically correct, multiples of the hijackings that the American people have suffered through are committed by Muslim terrorist. Obviously you don't study history, but there have been multiple flights in the 70's and 80's hijacked by Muslim terrorist. See the attached:

                                                    1940s

                                                    • July 25, 1947: An internal Romanian flight from Bucharest to Craiova was hijacked by three army officers seeking political asylum from communist Romania. The airplane landed at Çanakkale in Turkey. During hijacking the flight mechanic, Mitrofan Bescioti, was shot by lieutenant Aurel Dobre.[1]
                                                    • July 16, 1948: Miss Macao, a seaplane, was hijacked and then crashed into the Pearl River Delta. The crash killed 25 of the 26 passengers and crew.

                                                    [edit] 1950s

                                                    • March 24, 1950; three Douglas DC-3s from Czechoslovakia were simultaneously hijacked. All three planes landed at the US Air Force Base at Erding, West Germany. 26 of 85 passengers stayed in West Germany to escape from the Communist regime in Czechoslovakia.[2][3][4]
                                                    • December 12, 1954 a Syrian civilian airliner is forced to land at Lydda / Lod Airport, Israel, and the civilian passengers are held hostage for two days by the terrorists of Israeli armed forces.[5][6][7] According to Moshe Sharett, Israel's foreign minister, the purpose of hijacking was that Israeli Chief of Staff Moshe Dayan wanted "to get hostages in order to obtain the release of our prisoners in Damascus," which was a reference to Israeli spies who were captured inside Golan Heights, Syria (which was under Syrian control at that time), while retrieving wiretapping devices from telephone poles. The civilian passengers were released after two days of interrogation after international protests including strong condemnation from the United States.[7]

                                                    [edit] 1960s

                                                    • 1961: Aircraft forced to circle Lisbon to drop leaflets against the dictatorship that ruled the country. After that, the 6 hijackers forced the crew to fly them back to Morocco.
                                                    • May 1, 1962: First U.S. Airline flight hijacked to Cuba. A National Airlines Convair 440 flight from Marathon, Florida to Key West was hijacked by a man carrying a knife and a gun who demanded the flight divert to Havana. The aircraft, piloted by Captain Francis X. Riley, was thought to be lost at sea for several hours before authorities learned it had been hijacked.[9]
                                                    • July 31, 1961: The first attempted 'skyjacking' of an airline on American soil. Said to be 'inspired by numerous airliner hijackings from other countries to Cuba', pipeline worker Bruce Britt, Sr boarded and attempted to commandeer a Pacific Airlines flight at the Chico Municipal Airport, in Chico, Ca. His intended destination: home to Smackover, Ark. Though the attempt failed, Britt shot two airline employees, blinding one for life.[10]
                                                    • November 24, 1968: Luis Armando Pena Soltren, Jose Rafael Rios Cruz and Miguel Castro coerced the pilot of Pan Am Flight 281 out of New York's John F. Kennedy Airport on a scheduled route to Puerto Rico to divert to Havana, Cuba.[11][12] Passengers were evacuated from Cuba by a U.S. State Department aircraft. There were no fatalities.
                                                    • October 31, 1969: TWA Flight 85 en route from Los Angeles to San Francisco was hijacked by 19-year old US Marine Raffaele Minichiello. All passengers, including the band Harper's Bizarre, and three stewardesses were released in Denver. The hijacker, three pilots and a stewardess continued on to JFK airport in New York, where two pilots were added for the overseas flight. The plane refueled in Bangor, Maine and Shannon, Ireland, before continuing to Rome, Italy. In Rome, Minichiello took the chief of the airport police as a hostage and departed in a car, from which he slipped away, but was caught shortly thereafter.[14] Minichiello intended to visit his dying father in Italy. Italy did not extradite Minichiello and he served only 18 months in jail.[15] Covering 6900 miles, this was the longest hijacking in history.
                                                    • November 10, 1969: The youngest American on record to attempt to hijack a plane when a Delta Air Lines flight en route from Cincinnati to Chicago was hijacked by 14-year old David Booth. US Attorney George Kline of Lexington, Kentucky declined to prosecute Booth saying that the federal government does not have facilities to handle prosecution of juveniles as reported by the Lawrence Daily Journal-World.[16]
                                                    • December 11, 1969: a Korean Air Lines YS-11 en route from Gangneung to Seoul-Gimpo was hijacked by a North Korean agent and flown to North Korea. All four crew members and seven of the 46 other passengers (excluding the agent) were held hostage by North Korea; their fate is still unknown.[18]

                                                    [edit] 1970s

                                                    • March 17, 1970: Eastern Air Lines Shuttle Flight 1320, carrying passengers from Newark to Boston was hijacked around 7:30 P.M. by John J. Divivo who was armed with a .38 caliber revolver. Captain Robert Wilbur Jr., 35, a former Air Force pilot who had only been promoted to captain six months prior, was shot in his arm by the suicidal hijacker. With a .38 slug in his arm and bleeding profusely, he flew his aircraft safely to a landing while talking to the tower, telling them his copilot was shot (but not himself) and needed an ambulance. His copilot, First Officer James Hartley, 31, was shot without warning by Divivo and collapsed. Divivo then turned the gun on the captain, causing his arm injury. Despite being fatally wounded Hartley recovered sufficiently to rip the gun from Divivo's hand, and shoot the would-be hijacker three times before lapsing into unconsciousness, and eventually death. Although wounded and slumped between the seats, Divivo arose and began clawing at Captain Wilbur, attempting to force a crash. Wilbur hit Divivo over the head with the gun he had retrieved from the center console.[19] The pilot was able to land the plane safely at Logan International Airport, and the hijacker was arrested immediately.[20] On November 1, 1970, DiVivo hanged himself while awaiting trial at Charles Street Jail.[21]
                                                    • March 31, 1970: Japan Airlines Flight 351, carrying 131 passengers and 7 crew from Tokyo to Fukuoka, was hijacked by nine members of the Japanese Red Army group. 23 passengers were freed at Fukuoka Airport, mainly children and the elderly. 108 passengers and all crew members, along with the Red Army group, left Fukuoka, bound for Gimpo Airport, near Seoul. Three days later, the Red Army group asked to be flown to North Korean capital Pyongyang, before leaving from Seoul, 103 passenger and crew hostages were freed, and the Red Army group members surrendered to North Korean authorities.
                                                    • September 1970: As part of the Dawson's Field hijackings, PFLP members attempted to hijack four aircraft simultaneously. They succeeded on three and forced the planes to fly to the Jordanian desert, where the hijackers blew up the aircraft after releasing most of the hostages. The final hostages were freed in exchange for seven Palestinian prisoners. The fourth attack on an El Al plane by two people including Leila Khalid was foiled by the pilots, passengers and armed guards aboard.
                                                    • January 30, 1971: Indian Airlines Fokker F27 on scheduled Srinagar-Jammu flight is hijacked to Lahore by two self-proclaimed Kashmir Separatists. All passengers were released by February 2 and repatriated to India, but the aircraft was blown-up, leading to an India-Pakistan air-travel ban, and suspension of overflight rights until 1976.
                                                    • March, 1971: Philippine Airlines flight was hijacked in March 1971 by six students from the Mindanao State University, opposed to the Marcos government. The plane landed in Guangzhou (Canton) in southern China, and the Chinese authorities let the students stay in the country. The plane was then allowed to fly back to the Philippines. No one was hurt.
                                                    • May 1971: an IL-14 with 4 staff members and 16 passengers was hijacked by 6 men at the Oradea Airport (Romania), then forced to flew to Budapest (Hungary), then Vienna (Austria). The passengers and the crew were released in Vienna, while the hijackers flew to West Germany.[23]
                                                    • July 2, 1971: Braniff Flight 14, a B-707 flying from Acapulco to New York with 102 passengers and a crew of eight was hijacked on approach to a refueling stop in San Antonio, Texas. The ordeal lasted 43 hours across Texas, Mexico, Peru, Brazil and ended happily in Argentina. After a refueling stop in Monterrey, the hijackers released flight attendants Jeanette Eatman Crepps, Iris Kay Williams and Anita Bankert Mayer and all of the passengers. The remaining crew of Captain Dale Bessant, Bill Wallace, Phillip Wray and flight attendants Ernestina Garcia and Margaret Susan Harris flew on to Lima. The hijackers, a U.S. Navy deserter named Robert Jackson and his Guatemalan lady friend, demanded and got a ransom of $100,000 and wanted to go to Algeria. The Bessant crew was released, one by one, and replaced by a volunteer crew of Captain Al Schroeder, Bill Mizell, Bob Williams and Navigater Ken McWhorter. Two Lima based employees, Delia Arizola and Clorinda Ortoneda volunteered toboard the flight. Delia had been retired 6 months but still offered her services. The B-707 left for Rio and planned to refuel but the hijacker forced them on to Buenos Aires. The long flight and fatigue took its toll and the hijackers gave up. It was a record for long distance hijacking, over 7,500 miles.[24][25]
                                                    • November, 1971: Charles Hill, Ralph Lawernce, and Albert Finney were driving a carload of weapons to Louisiana as part of the Republic of New Afrika militant group. They murdered New Mexico State Police officer Robert Rosenbloom during a traffic stop and escaped to Albuquerque where they hijacked a TWA 727 to Cuba.[31][32]
                                                    • November 24, 1971: A man who became known as D. B. Cooper hijacked Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 305, a Boeing 727-100 aircraft flying from Portland, OR, to Seattle, WA, received US$200,000 in ransom, and parachuted from the plane. The actual name of the hijacker remains unknown. The hijacker revealed what appeared to be a bomb to a flight attendant and demanded the ransom and parachutes. The flight landed in Seattle, and FBI agents provided the ransom money and parachutes. Cooper then released all passengers and one flight attendant. After refueling, the aircraft took off again and flew toward Reno, NV. Cooper opened the aft stairs and jumped from the plane with a parachute during a heavy rainstorm. The aircraft was forced to land with the aft stairs deployed. The FBI believes Cooper most likely did not survive, but the case remains unsolved.[33][34][35]
                                                    • January 12, 1972: Braniff Flight 38, a Boeing 727, was hijacked as it departed Houston, Texas bound for Dallas, Texas. The lone armed hijacker, Billy Gene Hurst, Jr., allowed all 94 passengers to deplane after landing at Dallas Love Field but continued to hold the 7 crewmembers hostage, demanding to fly to South America and asking for US $2 million, parachutes, and jungle survival gear, amongst other items. After a 6-hour standoff, the entire crew secretly fled while Hurst was distracted examining the contents of a package delivered by Dallas police. Police officers stormed the craft shortly afterwards and arrested Hurst without serious incident.[36][37]
                                                    • January 28, 1972: TWA Flight 2, Los Angeles to New York, was hijacked by con man and bank robber Garrett Trapnell while over Chicago. Trapnell demanded $306,800 in cash (to recoup the loss of a recent court case), the release of Angela Davis (as well as that of a friend of his who was also imprisoned), and clemency from President Richard Nixon. The FBI was able to retake the aircraft during a crew switch at Kennedy Airport; Trapnell was shot and wounded, no one else was hurt. Trapnell's hijacking came after a string of domestic incidents and resulted in an overhaul of flight procedures by the Nixon Administration, procedures that remained in place until the September 11, 2001 hijackings. Trapnell and unrelated hijacker Martin J. McNally (see June 23, 1972 below) attempted to escape Marion federal prison on May 24, 1978, after Trapnell's girlfriend Barbara Ann Oswald hijacked a helicopter and ordered it to Marion but that hijacking ended when the pilot grabbed the woman's gun and killed Oswald. On December 21, 1978 Oswald's 17-year-old daughter Robin Oswald hijacked TWA Flight 541 in another attempt to rescue Trapnell. She surrendered after 10 hours of negotiations at the airport in Marion.
                                                    • June 3, 1972: Western Airlines Flight 701 from Los Angeles to Seattle was hijacked by Black Panthers Willie Roger Holder, a black Vietnam veteran, and Catherine Marie Kerkow. The hijackers claimed they had a bomb in an attache case and demanded $500,000. After allowing all 97 passengers to get off in San Francisco, they flew to Algeria where they were granted political asylum. The Algerian government confiscated and returned $488,000 of the ransom money to US officials.[38][39][40][41]
                                                    • June 23, 1972: In the 9th copycat D.B. Cooper-style hijacking Martin J. McNally under the pseudonym of Robert W. Wilson hijacked St. Louis-Tulsa American Airlines Flight 119 on a Boeing 727 and demands $502,500. The plane flew back and forth between Tulsa and St. Louis while the loot was raised. While at St. Louis Lambert Airport a man after seeing the television news coverage of the case crashed at 80 mph through the airport fence into the plane struts in a Cadillac convertible. The hijacker transferred to a new 727 and jumped out of the plane over Indiana. The full loot bag and gun was discovered by searchers near Peru, Indiana. Fingerprints led to McNally. While in Marion Federal Prison McNally and fellow inmate and hijacker Garrett Trapnell (see January 28, 1972 above) on May 24, 1978 were involved in an attempted prison escape after Trapnell's girlfriend hijacked a helicopter. The escape attempt ended when the helicopter pilot grabbed the woman's gun and killed her. McNally was paroled from prison January 27, 2010.[42]
                                                    • July 31, 1972: Delta Air Lines Flight 841 was hijacked by five members of the Black Liberation Army including the elusive George Wright. The flight was originally from Detroit to Miami. The hijackers exchanged the passengers for $1 million in Miami and forced the plane to fly to Boston, then Algeria who returned the plane and cash but released the hijackers.[43][44][45]
                                                    • September 15, 1972: SAS DC 9 - Gunder Viking - with registration number LN-RLO on route from Torslanda, Gothenburg, Sweden, to Stockholm, Sweden, was hijacked five minutes after take off by 3 armed Croatian terrorists connected to Ustasa. The plane was ordered to land at Bulltofta airport, Malmö, Sweden. 86 passengers and 4 crew members were held hostage until the next morning when the hostages were released in exchange for 500,000 Swedish Kronor and seven Croatian terrorists imprisoned in Sweden. The last passenger left the plane unharmed after 16 hours. The plane and crew was then ordered to fly to Madrid, Spain, where the hijackers later were to be put on trial.
                                                    • October 29, 1972: Lufthansa Flight 615, a Boeing 727, from Beirut to Frankfrurt, piloted by capt. Walter Claussen, was hijacked by three men and flown to Zagreb, asking for liberation of three other terrorists. After boarding the three liberated terrorists, the plane was redirected to Tripoli in Libya where all hostages were finally liberated.[46]
                                                    • November 10, 1972: Southern Airways Flight 49, was hijacked by three men and flown to multiple locations in the United States, and one Canadian city. At one point, the hijackers threatened to fly the plane into the nuclear reactor at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, if their demands for $10 million in cash were not met. While stopped for refueling at McCoy Air Force Base, Orlando, the FBI shot out the plane's tires, prompting the hijackers to force pilot William Haas to take off. The hijacking came to an end when the plane landed on a partially foam-covered runway in Havana, Cuba, and the hijackers were captured after attempting to escape.
                                                    • April 24, 1973: The hijacking attempt of Aeroflot Tu-104 flying from Leningrad to Moscow. When a flight attendant tried to disarm the hijacker, the bomb detonated, killing both and causing the decompression. The crew made an emergency landing in Leningrad; the plane was written off.[47]
                                                    • May 18, 1973: Another hijacking attempt of Aeroflot Tu-104 flying from Irkutsk to Chita. The terrorist demanded the plane be diverted to China. The bomb detonated and the plane crashed near Lake Baikal, killing all 82 people on board.[48]
                                                    • November 25, 1973: A KLM Boeing 747, "Mississippi", was hijacked by three young Arabs over Iraqi airspace on a scheduled Amsterdam-Tokyo flight with 247 passengers on board. After the hijackers threatened to blow up the plane when no country would grant landing permission, the plane landed in Malta. Most of the passengers and the eight stewardesses were released after negotiations with the Maltese PM Dom Mintoff who argued with the hijackers that the plane could not possibly take off with both the passengers and the 27,000 gallons of fuel they had demanded given the (then) short runway. With 11 passengers on board the jumbo jet left Malta to Dubai where the incident ended without fatalities.[49]
                                                    • September 10, 1976: TWA Flight 355 was hijacked by Croatian separatists. Some passengers were allowed to deplane in Canada before the hijackers continued on to Iceland, then France, where they released the remaining passengers and surrendered to authorities. One New York police officer was killed while working on a bomb which the hijackers had planted at Grand Central Station.
                                                    • March 13, 1978: United Flight 696 was hijacked by a lone American immediately after takeoff out of KSFO. The aircraft landed in Oakland and the release of cabin crew and passengers was negotiated by the flight crew. The fueling was cut short by the hijacker and Flt 696 took off only partially refueled. Flight 696 landed in Denver to take on more fuel for Cuba. While waiting for the fuel, the cockpit crew jumped from the cockpit to escape the hijacker. The hijacker surrendered to the FBI within minutes of the crew's escape. No fatalities but the three cockpit crew-members suffered fractures and torn cartilage from the two-story leap.
                                                    • August 30, 1978: LOT Polish Airlines Flight 165 was hijacked by two East Germans in order to escape to West Berlin. There were no casualties, the hijackers surrendered and were tried by never-before-convened United States Court for Berlin.
                                                    • September 30, 1978: Finnair Flight 405[50] was hijacked by Aarno Lamminparras; the flight was en route from Oulu to Helsinki. He requested a ransom of 675,000 markka, which he received, and as a result he released all 44 passengers on board. Then he ordered the plane to fly him to Amsterdam in the Netherlands and then back to Oulu. He returned home and was arrested there the next day. He served seven years and one month in prison and now lives in Sweden.[51] One of the passengers on board the hijacked plane was singer Monica Aspelund.[50]
                                                    • December 20, 1978: Devendra Nath Pandey and Bhola Nath Pandey hijacked Indian Airlines flight IC-410. They demanded the immediate release of Indian National Congress party leader Indira Gandhi who was imprisoned at that time on the charges of fraud and misconduct. Later, they were awarded with party tickets for this act by the Indira Gandhi government in 1980 such that Devendra Nath Pandey rose to become a minister in the government of most populous state of India, Uttar Pradesh. This case was also mentioned by Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale to justify his claim regarding the hypocrisy of the Indian government.[52]
                                                    • December 21, 1978: 17-year-old Robin Oswald hijacked TWA Flight 541 flying from Louisville to Kansas City claiming she had three sticks of dynamite. The plane landed at Williamson County Regional Airport where she hoped to seek the release of Garrett Trapnell who was serving time at Marion Federal Penitentiary. Trapnell was serving time for a January 28, 1972 hijacking (see January 28, 1972 above). On May 24, 1978 her mother Barbara Ann Oswald was killed after hijacking a helicopter in an attempt to rescue Trapnell. Robin eventually surrendered at the Williamson Airport. The dynamite was revealed to be flares.[53]

                                                    [edit] 1980s

                                                    • 1981: On March 2, 1981, Pakistan International Airlines's flight PK-326 began as a routine domestic hop from Karachi to Peshawar. In midair three heavily armed men seized the plane, diverted it to Kabul, Afghanistan, and demanded the release of 92 "political prisoners" from the Pakistani jails. On March 7, twenty nine hostages including women, children and sick men were released in Kabul. The Boeing 720B sat in Kabul for a week, and when Pakistan's President Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq refused to give in, the hijackers shot a Pakistani diplomat Tariq Rahim in full view of the other passengers and dumped his body onto the tarmac.
                                                    • 1981: The Hijacking of Flight Garuda Indonesia GA 206 on March 28, 1981. This was the first serious Indonesian airline hijacking, since the first case was a desperate Marine hijacker who was killed by the pilot himself. The hijackers, a group called Commando Jihad, hijacked the DC 9 "Woyla", onroute from Palembang to Medan, and ordered the pilot to fly the plane to Colombo, Sri Lanka. But since the plane didn't have enough fuel, it refueled in Penang, Malaysia and then to Don Muang, Thailand. The hijackers demanded the release of Commando Jihad members imprisoned in Indonesia, and US $ 1.5 million, as well as a plane to take those prisoners to an unspecified destination. The Kopassus commandos who took part in this mission trained for only three days with totally unfamiliar weapons, brilliantly executed this fast-paced operation. One of the Kopassus commandos was shot by the hijacker leader, who then shot himself. All the other hijackers were killed. All the hostages were saved.[citation needed]
                                                    • 1981: Aer Lingus Flight 164 from Dublin to London was hijacked and diverted to Le Touquet in France by a man demanding that the Pope release the third secret of Fatima. While authorities negotiated with the hijacker by radio in the cockpit, French special forces entered the rear of the aircraft and overpowered him.
                                                    • September 26, 1981: Yugoslav Airlines Flight from Titograd via Dubrovnik to Belgrade - A few minutes after take-off from Dubrovnik Airport ÄŒilipi, three hijackers diverted Boeing 727 YU AKF to Brindisi Airport in Italy. Just when crew were preparing for the final approach, hijackers decided to fly to Tel Aviv in Israel. Captain Ljubomir Zekavica persuaded hijackers to stop at Athens Ellinikon International Airport. After a long refuel and failed attempts to negotiate with hijackers, the airplane got clearance for take-off. When they reached Israeli airspace, the crew were ordered to leave immediately or the plane would be shot down by Israeli fighters, since Yugoslavia did not have diplomatic relationships with Israel at that time. At their return to Greece, the captain lied to hijackers that the plane was running out of fuel and simulated fuel loss at 30.000 feet so they would have to land at nearest airport. The plane landed at Larnaca International Airport at Cyprus. Hijackers agreed to let go sick dying old woman who were supposed to be urgently transported from Titograd to Belgrade hospital. During hostage release passengers secretly agreed to make panic as there was fire on the plane. Hijackers were confused and all 78 hostages and 7 crew members managed to escape. Hijackers were arrested by Greek police. Among hostages were whole FK Buducnost Podgorica football squad and few famous Serbian actors. The incident lasted about 14 hours.
                                                    • February 25, 1982: Kuwait Airways Flight KU561 from Kuwait to Beirut to Libya (return flight to Libya) was hijacked on the ground in Beirut, Lebanon on the return from Libya, with 150 aboard by Hamza akl Hamieh shortly after landing, demanding news and release of Imam Musa al Sadr, founder of the Islamic terrorist group AMAL, who had disappeared in Libya in 1978. The hijackers threatened to kill passengers if demands were not met and Lebanese security forces did not withdraw from the area around the plane. Despite negotiations with a high level Shia cleric Sheikh Abdul Amir Qabalan it was the missing Imams sister, Rehab, who persuaded Hamza to abandon the aircraft. Sheikh Qabala promised that appeals would be launched at the UN, The Arab League and the World Court to find Imam Sadr. In all five of his previous hijackings, Hamza never faced trial or incarceration. Just after midnight they left the plane and disappeared into the night. Captain Les Bradley flew the damaged plane back to Kuwait. There were no casualties. Ref Sacred Rage:Robin Wright Pages 46–51
                                                    • August 22, 1982: A lone Sikh militant, armed with a pistol and a hand grenade, hijacked an Indian Airlines on a scheduled flight from Mumbai to New Delhi carrying 69 persons. Indian security forces killed the hijacker and rescued all passengers. Peter Lamont, production designer working on the James Bond film Octopussy, was a passenger.
                                                    • August 1, 1984, a Air France Boeing 737-200 en route from Frankfurt to Paris with 82 passengers and crew aboard was hijacked by 3 terrorists who demanded to be taken to Tehran.[55] They were Arab protesters against military cooperation between France and Iraq on the Iran-Iraq war context. One steward escaped to the hijacker in Larnaka. The hijacking duration was 48 hours.[56] Terrorist destroy the aircraft by explosives in front of the TV cameras. They were no victims.[57] Strangely, the terrorist were taken in big black limousine and disapperaed in Iran.
                                                    • August 24, 1984: Seven young Sikh hijackers demanded an Indian Airlines jetliner flying from Delhi to Srinagar[58] be flown to the United Arab Emirates. The plane was taken to UAE where the defense minister of UAE negotiated the release of the passengers. It was related to the Sikh secessionist struggle in the Indian state of Punjab.
                                                    • March 8, 1988: Ovechkin family (a mother and her 10 children) attempted to hijack a Tu 154 flight from Irkutsk to Leningrad while trying to escape from the USSR. The plane landed on a military airfield near Vyborg and was then stormed. A stewardess and three passengers were killed. The mother was killed by one of her sons by her own request, then four of them committed suicide.

                                                    [edit] 1990s

                                                    • 1990: Hijackers seized a plane from the People's Republic of China which later crashed as it tried to land in Guangzhou, killing 128 people.
                                                    • 1993: Two separate hijackings of Indian Airlines aircraft to Amritsar, Punjab, India in the month of April. In the first case the hijacker was talked into surrendering; in the second, the NSG stormed in and killed the two hijackers and captured one. The Amritsar Deputy Commissioner Karan Bir Singh Sidhu was conferred the Convoy Safe Skies Award.
                                                    • 1993: Russian Aeroflot passenger jet flying from Perm to Moscow diverted to Gardermoen airport by two Iranian brothers. Hijackers surrendered and hostages went free. The hijackers were later given asylum in Norway for humanitarian reasons.
                                                    • 1995: Russian cargo jet flying from Tirana to Kabul was forced to land in Kandahar by Taliban forces. Jet's crew had been held in a captivity until escape in 1996.
                                                    • 1996: Hemus Air Tu-154 aircraft was hijacked by the Palestinian Nadir Abdallah, flying from Beirut to Varna. The hijacker demanded that the aircraft be refuelled and given passage to Oslo, Norway after landing at Varna Airport. All of the 150 passengers were freed at Varna, afterwards the crew continued the flight to Oslo, where the hijacker surrendered and asked for political assylum.[63]
                                                    • 1996: Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 crashed into the Indian Ocean near a beach in the Comoros Islands after hijackers refused to allow the pilot to land and refuel the plane. 125 passengers died and the remaining 50 passengers survived with minor injuries. This was the third incident in which there were survivors of a passenger jet that had been intentionally ditched into a body of water.
                                                    • 1997: Two men who hijacked Air Malta Flight 830 en route from Malta to Turkey on June 9, 1997 surrendered to police at an airport in Cologne, Germany, early on the same day and freed without incident about 80 crew members and passengers on board.

                                                    [edit] 2000s

                                                    • 2000, August 18: a VASP Boeing 737-2A1 registration PP-SMG en route from Foz do Iguaçu to Curitiba-Afonso Pena was hijacked by 5 persons with the purpose of robbing BRL 5 million (approximately USD 2.75 Million) that the aircraft was transporting. The pilot was forced to land at Porecatu where the hijackers fled with the money. There were no victims.[64][65]
                                                    • 2000, October 14: Saudi Arabian Airlines Flight 115,[66] flying from Jeddah to London was hijacked en route by two men who claimed they were armed with explosives. The hijackers commandeered the Boeing 777-200 to Baghdad, Iraq, where all 90 passengers and 15 crew members were safely released. The two hijackers, identified as Lieutenant Faisal Naji Hamoud Al-Bilawi and First Lieutenant Ayesh Ali Hussein Al-Fareedi,[67] both Saudi citizens, were arrested and later extradited to Saudi Arabia in 2003.[68]
                                                    • 2000, 11 November: A Vnukovo Airlines Tu-154 flying from Makhachkala to Moscow was hijacked by a man demanding it be diverted to Israel. The plane landed at an Israeli military base where hijacker surrendered. None of 59 people on board were injured.[69]
                                                    • 2001, 15 March: Another Vnukovo Airlines Tu-154 flying from Istanbul to Moscow was hijacked by a three Chechen terrorists demanding it be diverted to Saudi Arabia. After the plane with 174 people on board landed at Medina the terrorist threatened to blow it up unless it would be refuelled for flying to Afghanistan. The Saudi authorities decided to storm the plane. During the assault 2 people were killed by Saudi police: one of the passengers (Turkish citizen), and the leader of the terrorists. The stewardess, Yulia Fomina, was killed during the hijacking, and later the plane was named after her.[70]


                                                    United Airlines Flight 93 wreckage at the crash site in Somerset County, Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001.

                                                    • 2006: Turkish Airlines Flight 1476, flying from Tirana to Istanbul, was hijacked in Greek airspace. The aircraft, with 107 passengers and six crew on board, transmitted two coded hijack signals which were picked up by the Greek air force; the flight was intercepted by military aircraft and landed safely at Brindisi, Italy.
                                                    • 2007: an Atlasjet MD-80 en route from Nicosia to Istanbul was hijacked by two Arab students, who said they were Al Qaeda operatives, one trained in Afghanistan, and wanted to go to Tehran, Iran. The plane landed in Antalya, the passengers escaped and the hijackers were arrested.[72]
                                                    • 2008: a Sun Air Boeing 737 flying from Nyala, Darfur, in Western Sudan to the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, was hijacked shortly after takeoff. The hijackers demanded to be taken to France where they reputedly wanted to gain asylum. The plane initially tried to land at Cairo but was refused permission. It subsequently touched down at Kufra, Libya. The hijackers gave themselves up almost 24 hours after taking the plane. There were no reported casualties.
                                                    • 2009: CanJet Flight 918, a Boeing 737-800 preparing to depart from the Sangster International Airport in Montego Bay, Jamaica to Canada was hijacked by a gunman who forced his way through airport security onto the plane. His main motive was a demand to the crew to fly him to Cuba. Most of the passengers on the plane gave him money to buy their freedom. For the rest of the night, negotiations took place as 6 crew members were held hostage in the flight for several hours. Quick responses from the police force allowed them to disarm the hijacker and arrest him. There were no casualties.

                                                    [edit] 2010s

                                                    • January 2011: Turkish Airlines Flight 1754, flying from Oslo to Istanbul, was in Bulgarian airspace when, allegedly, an unsuccessful attempt was made to hijack it. The suspect allegedly said that he had a bomb and that he would blow up the aircraft unless the plane returned to Norway. Some passengers overpowered the hijacker and the flight safely landed at Atatürk International Airport at 9:30 p.m after the pilot notified emergency service. All 60 passengers and seven crew got off the aircraft; none were injured during the incident. The suspect was arrested.[73]
                                                    • 29 June 2012: an attempt was made to hijack Tianjin Airlines Flight GS7554 from Hotan to Ürümqi. Six people tried to hijack the aircraft 10 minutes after take-off. There were 6 police officers on board. Four were in plain clothes, taking the plane for a business trip. The hijackers used aluminium canes with sharpened tips to attack the members of the crew. The police officers and civilians on board subdued the hijackers, all of whom were of Uyghur ethnicity. The plot was foiled and the plane returned to Hotan in 22 minutes after takeoff.[76]
                                                    • 1 vote
                                                    #3.13 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:03 PM EST

                                                    Actually Tracy, you just proved my point...were those all Muslim hijackings you listed throughout those decades - NO. So to say it's just Muslim extremists that caused this is utterly ridiculous.

                                                    Maybe you should read the history you just posted.

                                                    Here's an example from what you posted:

                                                    Dammit - those FedEx terrorists caused all this.

                                                      #3.14 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:13 PM EST

                                                      I think there needs to be a limit on the length of a post.

                                                      My scroll wheel just wore out.

                                                        #3.15 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:41 PM EST

                                                        @sleepinsadie

                                                        Pray Hard - this is not "the world Muslims have forced us to live in," as we scrambled fighter jets to planes multiple times before 9/11 when we had no idea about Muslim terrorists...unless you think Payne Stewart was a "golf terrorist".

                                                        You should be questioning why we didn't scramble them that day - the only recorded day we didn't when we had planes go off radar.

                                                        And inMYday, I do believe you are right - if you look at the wreckage in the field and how it's strewn over miles, there's no way that plane crashed in that field.

                                                        • !

                                                        #3.12 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:41 AM EST

                                                        You stated that prior to 9/11 we didn't know about Muslim terrorist, I stated in post 3.13 we had dealings with multiple muslim terrorist priot to 9/11. To say I proved your point is lunacy, I proved you a troll.

                                                        @inmyday, sorry about scroll wheel fracture and everyone else. Everyone says to post the facts, so I did it.

                                                          #3.16 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:22 PM EST

                                                          I wouldn't say "troll" - but it's not just due to Muslim terrorists and yes, maybe I did word that incorrectly...Why wouldn't it be because of Cuban Terrorists, as your list points out that the first US Airline hijacked was from a Cuban Terrorist or American Terrorist, as DB Cooper hijacked an American plane before any Muslims or the FedEx guy that wanted to use the plane as a "cruise missle" before that's documented by Muslims?

                                                          But see, everyone wants to run around saying - this is due to Muslims, like there were no hijackings before and fighter jets were never scrambled before. I pointed out that fighter jets were scrambled for a white guy flying in America (Payne Stewart) well before any Muslim hijacked a plane and flew it into a building in America.

                                                          Your facts show that it's not just Muslims and that it didn't just start with Muslims, or did I read your list wrong and it was only Muslims listed? It shows that a Cuban and Americans hijacked American planes well before Muslims ever did.

                                                            #3.17 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:36 PM EST
                                                            Reply

                                                            I would think that making a false report of an act of terrorism would itself be an act of terrorism and prosecuted as such. The guy dumped you and he is going back to his ex, get over it.

                                                            • 7 votes
                                                            Reply#4 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:44 AM EST

                                                            Or possible that real terrorist are testing out responses.

                                                              #4.1 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:12 PM EST
                                                              Reply

                                                              I'm glad the Oregon ANG finally has something useful to do instead of buzzing low over my house and rattling my windows playing tag with each other. Also, I hope the authorities are aware of the ground caller's identity in case this was a prank.

                                                              • 3 votes
                                                              Reply#5 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:53 AM EST

                                                              This is the umpteenth time the Oregon ANG intercepted a flight over Seattle, Washington! We have McCHORD AFB and WHIDBEY ISLAND NAVAL AIR STATION! What the hell are they doing? I know they mostly handle airlift and anti-sub, but don't they have an F-16 or F-18 or something to actually protect the State they are in? Makes me feel safe here in Kitsap County, Washington, where most of those flights make there approach run! And anyway, where, if in worst case scenario, would the Oregon ANG have shot this plane down if needed? Probably nowhere safer than the USAF in Washington would have.

                                                                #5.1 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:46 AM EST

                                                                It is the responsibility of NORAD and the Oregon Air National Guard to intercept unknown aircraft and now, to intercept potentially threatening commercial aircraft. That has been their charge for decades. McChord AFB doesn't have fighter jets. Whidbey and its EF-18G jamming aircraft aren't quite configured for the task and are further from Hawaii than Oregon.

                                                                @ballistic362- all that "playing tag" they do is practice for an actual intercept. BFM: Basic Fighter Manuveuring. Playing video games just doesn't cut. They have to get out there and do it.

                                                                Sierra Hotel, OrANG!

                                                                • 4 votes
                                                                #5.2 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:58 AM EST
                                                                Reply

                                                                No, they "may" have a right IF the airplane has been taken over. The Pilot's cabin door is locked and even IF a hijacker takes over the the Passenger area, the Pilot will be in contact with the fighter plane and could either turn around, fly to the nearest airport, etc. Why would there be a need to shoot down a plane that is controlled by its Pilot? A hijacker, would be over taken by the Passengers. This is a different era. Pity.

                                                                • 3 votes
                                                                Reply#6 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:56 AM EST

                                                                good point.

                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                #6.1 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:32 AM EST

                                                                The plane wasn't taken over, that's why they ended up just escorting it to the airport. If they were unable to contact the pilot the situation would have escalated and other measures taken.

                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                #6.2 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:28 AM EST
                                                                Reply

                                                                If the pilot still has control of the aircraft, they won't have any reason to shoot it down. That's the reason fighters are sent to communicats and access the danger first. If the hijackers have control, then the airliner could be brought down.

                                                                George Bush gave two of the top the Air
                                                                Force generals permission to shoot down any hijacked plane presenting clear and
                                                                present danger to any city in America. How are Americans supposed to feel safe
                                                                about getting on a plane after the Sept. 11 attacks
                                                                and knowing that they could be shot down now. I mean
                                                                sure the airports have beefed up security BIG TIME but you can never make something 100% safe. So how are we supposed to be confident and fly again?

                                                                  Reply#7 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:02 AM EST

                                                                  Either way you're screwed. Either the hijackers can kill you by ramming the plane into a building, or you can get shot down. Dead either way. Flying is still safer than driving a car though. So why worry about terrorists taking over a plane when the likely hood of that happening is remote at best.

                                                                  • 4 votes
                                                                  #7.1 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:23 AM EST

                                                                  Hmm... nothing in life is 100% except death. If you can't live with that, don't blame others.

                                                                  • 4 votes
                                                                  #7.2 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:00 AM EST

                                                                  Simple answer, If someone tries to take over your flight, fight them!!! If there were a few more Americans with the will to fight on each of those flights 9-11 would have been a sad day where we lost a few brave Americans rather than the day they sat in their seats and awaited death like sheep, taking thousands on the ground with them.

                                                                  Stand up for yourself or die. No matter how much the NeoLibs say they will keep you safe, sometimes it comes down to you, and the resources you are carrying, to protect yourself. Your will is the first thing you need followed by a handy weapon. Any weapon. Just about anything hard, heavy, or sharp. When employed with a decisive will would likely proove sufficient. The hyjackers had box cutters and the will to use them. The key here is the WILL to use the weapon, what the weapon happens to be is somewhat secondary.

                                                                  • 2 votes
                                                                  #7.3 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:37 AM EST

                                                                  Let's not be critical of those that lost their lives on 9/11. The people on board the jets that crashed into the Twin Towers had no way of knowing that was going to be their fate. The pilots of the planes were killed as soon as the hijackers took over the cabin. If you were on board and rushed the hijackers successfully would you have been able to fly the plane successfully?

                                                                  What is your problem with NeoLibs? They never said not to fight back or that their plans for safety were foolproof.

                                                                  Obviously the NeoCons didn't keep 3,000 people from dying on 9/11, so if you are looking for blame perhaps you ought to start with them. They had some warning that bin Laden was going to strike in the U.S. and did nothing.

                                                                  • 1 vote
                                                                  #7.4 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:46 PM EST
                                                                  Reply

                                                                  FBI agents met the plane when it landed in Seattle, and the individual was taken off the plane without incident,

                                                                  SUBJECT as in a individual under the power of the King.

                                                                  refreshing change from the usual banter of thr government crime dogs.

                                                                  • 4 votes
                                                                  Reply#8 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:03 AM EST

                                                                  The war on terror isn't over folks.

                                                                    Reply#9 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:04 AM EST

                                                                    Recently a child was kicked out of school because he made a gun out of his hand, could this be the same. I hope they got the person that made the call to the Fed's, because that person needs prison time. People are so stupid after 12 years of TSA,metal detectors,X-Ray scanners and body search's, you would think about trying to have a gun in your baggage. But according to the TSA they are still finding guns about 500 a year, this really scare's me that I may be the only person with common sense.

                                                                    • 3 votes
                                                                    Reply#10 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:08 AM EST

                                                                    If you have as much common sense as you have grammar skills, that scares me!

                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                    #10.1 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:02 AM EST
                                                                    Reply

                                                                    Let me get this straight. An individual calls someone at the airport falsely reporting an individual excuting a terror plot and the feds use this tip as a probable cause to arrest and detain the named individual?

                                                                    Sounds like justice to me. You know, the safety of hundreds of people is more important than the rights of a piece of individual.

                                                                    Was it that detaining him and swiftly questioning him cheaper than monitering him until it's clear what he was up to?

                                                                    I say sue the feds for emotional and professional damages (or whatever the creative parasitic blood sucking lawyers could come up with) and make it more expensive for the feds to do justice this way.

                                                                    In the meantime americans need to stop bragging about the best justice system in the world.

                                                                    • 5 votes
                                                                    Reply#11 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:18 AM EST

                                                                    That's the principle of tyranny because you can always argue that anything is for "safety" of others.

                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                    #11.1 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:04 AM EST

                                                                    Was it that detaining him and swiftly questioning him cheaper than monitering him until it's clear what he was up to?

                                                                    Well, it sounds like the call was made when the flight was already in progress, so exactly what kind of monitoring would you have liked and when would it have taken place?

                                                                      #11.2 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:45 PM EST
                                                                      Reply

                                                                      Where is all of this "ex girlfriend" stuff is coming from? We will never know what happened, but taking someone off and questioning them in an aggressive manner......I agree better safe than sorry but if I was the passenger (assuming that they were innocent) I would mortified, frightened, angered, etc beyond words. Perhaps they saw the fighter jets and called it off......... but I would think that had this been a hijacking attempt that they would have gone for a bigger city such as LA etc. Im so thankful that everyone is alive, and I hope that if the passenger is truly innocent that they recover quickly.

                                                                      • 5 votes
                                                                      Reply#12 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:32 AM EST

                                                                      I agree with detaining an individual named in a potential hijacking to ascertain if he/she was a real threat. Once determined it was a prank or a revenge plot, I would go after the one who made the call. They would serve jail time, pay restitution for the "extra" services used, and pay restitution to the person named unfairly. The only airline that person would be flying would be ConAir.

                                                                      • 3 votes
                                                                      Reply#13 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:51 AM EST

                                                                      Why is he a potential hijacker? Because a random phone call said so?

                                                                      • 2 votes
                                                                      #13.1 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:05 AM EST

                                                                      That's all it takes.

                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                      #13.2 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:23 AM EST

                                                                      The random phone call connected an individual with an airline and a flight, a date, and a time. After establishing a 100% accuracy with those connections the further assertion regarding the reason for the trip seems a prudent reason for an investigation in some detail.

                                                                      The caller needs to be investigated as well and possible charges brought if it was a hoax.

                                                                        #13.3 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:43 AM EST
                                                                        Reply

                                                                        If this guy was not armed he should not have been detained.

                                                                        • 3 votes
                                                                        Reply#14 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:57 AM EST

                                                                        It seems Americans want it both ways...

                                                                        someone calls and makes a seemingly false claim against another person and that person get sdetained.

                                                                        but some think that is not fair and that since 9/11 the goverment has over stepped its bounds in safety, security, intelligence, etc...

                                                                        So lets say that the person was going to carry out some plot to hijack a plane and decided to not go thru with it, I fly regularly and I want the government to protect me against all matters seen and unseen. More so I want GOD to protect me above all else.

                                                                        So how do we do that, some times we have to go thru things that make us uncomfortable.... YES if it were me that got detained because my ex-wife or whoever wanted to put me in my place, after I cleared my name I would give the government every name possible of people who would do something like this.....

                                                                        • 3 votes
                                                                        Reply#15 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:57 AM EST

                                                                        Oh... poor baby. You want the 2 big Gs to take care of all of your problems... you poor thing.

                                                                        How about growing a pair? Next time it's going to be you that'll be detained and thrown in Guantanamo without a judge or jury!

                                                                        • 2 votes
                                                                        #15.1 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:07 AM EST

                                                                        Jimboza -The same thing could be said about a lot of people that want the big government to take care of them financially.

                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                        #15.2 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:04 AM EST

                                                                        Did the FBI know it was a false claim when they took him off the plane. NO, after questioning him , they probably did.

                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                        #15.3 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:26 AM EST
                                                                        Reply

                                                                        Interesting...VERY interesting.

                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                        Reply#16 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:10 AM EST

                                                                        "According to Alaska Airlines officials, that individual slept through most of the flight"

                                                                        I guess Achmed was tired.

                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                        Reply#17 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:15 AM EST

                                                                        What kind of a name is Achmed?

                                                                          #17.1 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:08 AM EST

                                                                          I believe he is a ventriloquist's dummy. Or it could be the other way around I've seen his act.

                                                                            #17.2 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:23 AM EST
                                                                            Reply

                                                                            Dont ya think the FBI went to check out this person that made the call?? and get a feel of whats up along with a in person statement .. and make sure it was a prank.. plenty time a long flight like this one if the call was made early in the flight so im guessing there was reason for cause, cuz once that call was made, that individual and some close friends/family had their life/lives opened and subjected both ways, so there was no stipulations to prevent or hinder any instant investigations..

                                                                            They would not be able to shoot that aircraft down until either they had the Presidents or next in charge premission or that airlcraft was within reach of doing harm, either not responding or would comply..

                                                                            Im guessing it was a ticked off spouse or associate....

                                                                            • 3 votes
                                                                            Reply#18 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:16 AM EST

                                                                            I don't like flying. But when I do, I want to get to my destination safely. I'd much rather they took a threat seriously than blew off something that possibly did happen and a plane full of people crashed.

                                                                            • 3 votes
                                                                            Reply#19 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:27 AM EST

                                                                            Worry more about stupidity of people like you, rather than some phantom hijackers!

                                                                            You're much more likely to die of stupidity than of hijacking.

                                                                            • 1 vote
                                                                            #19.1 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:09 AM EST

                                                                            Like the stupidy of gun laws?

                                                                            You will die from one thing or another.

                                                                            "Phantom Hijackers"?

                                                                            We knew a few ot these.

                                                                            They used box cutters and flew planes into the WTC towers.

                                                                            • 1 vote
                                                                            #19.2 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:14 AM EST
                                                                            Reply

                                                                            KUDOS to Oregon ANG!!

                                                                            • 6 votes
                                                                            Reply#20 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:11 AM EST

                                                                            Did my friend request work back at you? I was banished from the Kingdom when I replied, hope so. Have a great day.

                                                                              #20.1 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:26 AM EST
                                                                              Reply

                                                                              And while no followup story was posted...the "detained" individual, having committed no crime whatsoever (other than actually flying on PALIN airways) will be quietly incarcerated in a FEDERAL prison for the REST OF HIS NATURAL LIFE...with no formal charges and no trial.

                                                                              • 1 vote
                                                                              Reply#21 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:59 AM EST
                                                                              Reply

                                                                              you people need to watch this.......

                                                                              • 1 vote
                                                                              Reply#22 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:01 AM EST

                                                                              Jimboza

                                                                              You are such an ass. What is your solution to this situation?

                                                                                Reply#23 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:06 AM EST

                                                                                You people who think it is alright for this individual to be detained are a bunch of idiots. I agree that to send up a fighter escort was the proper response. Also the flight crew should have been notified so they could be prepared to take action if needed. But when the flight landed and this individual had done nothing wrong, whoever it was, should have been able to go without interference.
                                                                                It looks like to me, that we have people in our country who would have been great informers for the Gestapo and the GRU. In our country we should not be able to be detained because of a phone call. We are becoming closer to a police state when we allow or even condone these actions by the FBI. It was wrong for this individual to be detained. This individual should have been monitored from a distance and action only taken when it was clear that this individual was in the process of breaking the law. When has sleeping become against the law?

                                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                                Reply#24 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:08 AM EST

                                                                                He was detained, interrogated for a couple of hours and released. Did law enforcement know WHO made the call, we don't know that, they probably got his story as to who might have called and continued their investigation.

                                                                                If I made a call and reported that you were going to blow up a school. don't you think the law would be knocking down your door and take you in for questioning, even though you were doing nothing but watching tv or sleeping at that time?

                                                                                http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264345/Seattle-bound-flight-escorted-fighter-jets-caller-reports-sleeping-passenger-hijacker.html

                                                                                  #24.1 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:22 AM EST
                                                                                  Reply

                                                                                  The same people who said they should not have detained and questioned the passenger and attempted to complete their investigation about who made the call...since the caller already knew the subject passenger was on the flight, and might be S/O or an associate of the passenger...are the same ones who criticized Bush for not connecting a bunch of unrelated dots prior to 9/11.

                                                                                    Reply#25 - Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:12 AM EST
                                                                                    Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3
                                                                                    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                                    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.