[habs4ever]

The bomb threat on board only confirms that, armed only with knives, these jerks will detonate the bombs. The bomb will go off.If they planned to escape, they would have needed guns.To have a "normal" hijacking inplies landing and negotiation and using hostages to shield themselves.It is the prospect of a firefight on the ground that turns the hostages into valuable pawns for the terrorists.Without the guns, there is no landing, no firefight, , no need to worry about a long trip in the air.What they were armed with determined the outcome, at least from my point of view.With guns, there was a chance for a peaceful resolution;without them, it was a suicide mission.Do you follow my reasoning here?

[soccermom]

No I don't. You're playing armchair quarterback. I can guarantee you I wouldn't be drawing any inferences on their plans based on their choice of weapons. There are many terrorist who claim to have bombs, but really don't. As with any other weapon, there can always be a threat without a certainty of follow-through. They were told the plane was going to land. They had no reason to suspect otherwise.

[NittanyLion]

Without the guns, there is no landing, no firefight, , no need to worry about a long trip in the air.What they were armed with determined the outcome, at least from my point of view.With guns, there was a chance for a peaceful resolution; without them, it was a suicide mission.

I understand what you're saying, but in real-time this is a lot to compute in a little amount of time. The same thought might have run through my head if I was on the plane. However, I would also consider whether the terrorists were operating under the same premises and rationale that I was. What I think is necessary for getting out alive may not be what they think is necessary.

All that in mind I think I would have complied, unless the terrorists or someone else told me I was about to meet my death. Then I would have fought like hell to gain control of that plane.