Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Viewing Single Post From: Did AAL11 hijackers have guns?
A-Train

The Case that the AAL11 Hijackers were armed with guns:

An "executive summary," that is, a high level memo, was prepared on the evening of 9/11 that included a report that a passenger on AAL11 had been shot by a hijacker.

http://www.wnd.com/images2/faa911memoside.jpg

The report is very detailed and specific that it was a shooting, even detailing the number of shots fired:

Quote:
 
"The American Airlines FAA Principal Security Inspector (PSI) was notified by Suzanne Clark of American Airlines Corporate Headquarters that an on board flight attendant contacted American Airlines Operations Center and informed that a passenger located in seat 10B shot and killed a passenger in seat 9B at 9:20 a.m. The passenger killed was Daniel Lewin, shot by passenger Satam Al Suqami. One bullet was reported to have been fired."


It seems both the FAA and American Airlines made a crude effort to cover up the report of a gun:

Quote:
 
FAA and American Airline officials later deny the gun story and suggest that Lewin was probably stabbed to death instead. Officials assert that the leaked document was a “first draft,” and subsequently corrected, but declines to release the final draft, calling it “protected information.” However, an FAA official present when the memo was drafted will dispute the FAA’s claim, asserting that “[t]he document was reviewed for accuracy by a number of people in the room, including myself and a couple of managers of the operations center.”
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26732


How likely is it that a high level memo that was reviewed for accuracy by several managers can contain a detailed report of a shooting that never took place? To believe that, you have to believe that someone in the line of communications from the airline, through law enforcement, and ultimately to the FAA completely hallucinated the story of a shooting, complete with the number of bullets fired.

The 9/11 Commission Report also dismissed the possibility of a shooting:

Quote:
 
"An early draft report of an executive summary prepared by FAA security staff for the agency's leadership referred to an alleged report of a shooting aboard Flight 11. We believe this report was erroneous for a number of reasons-- there is no evidence that the hijackers purchased firearms, use of a gun would be inconsistent with the otherwise common tactics employed by the hijackers, the alleged shooting victim was seated where witness accounts place the stabbing victim (9B), and, most important, neither Betty Ong nor Amy Sweeney the only two people who communicated to the ground from aboard the aircraft, reported the presence of a gun or shooting. Both reported knives and stabbings."
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/notes.pdf


The Commission's reasoning if faulty on every count:

1. "..no evidence the hijackers purchased firearms" Except that the Commission has never proven who the hijackers really were.

2. "..inconsistent with the otherwise common tactics employed by the hijackers" Who says it wasn't consistent? What about the credible report by Tom Burnett of a gun on UAL93. (Regarding Burnett's report of a gun, the Commission dismisses it because a gun wasn't found in the wreckage!)

3. "..the alleged shooting victim was seated where witness accounts place the stabbing victim (9B)" Which witness account are we talking about? According to a credible account from one of the UAL employees who took her call, Ong reported the hijackers in seats 9A and 9B, and an injured passenger in 10B.

4. "..neither Betty Ong nor Amy Sweeney the only two people who communicated to the ground from aboard the aircraft, reported the presence of a gun or shooting. Both reported knives and stabbings."So they reported knives and stabbings-- why couldn't there have been those as well as guns? Maybe the stabbings were just to fool us into thinking this was carried out by unsophisticated Arab groups, when the real perpetrators were far more sophisticated, with the ability to smuggle guns onto a plane.

The executive summary that described a shooting was based on Betty Ong's call. That call lasted 25 minutes, but only four minutes were taped. The official reason for this is because the phone system had a time limit of four minutes and turned off automatically. Do we really believe a phone system at an airline designed to take emergency calls involving urgent situations like hijackings is going to only be enabled for four minutes? Perhaps we would be more ready to believe the government's contention that there was no report of a gun in Ong's call if they could play the whole tape for us. But they can't.

Conclusion:

The report of a gun in the executive summary was not the figment of some bureaucrat's overstimulated imagination; it was based on what Betty Ong said in the 21 minutes of her call that are unknown to us. The hijackers had a gun on AAL11, just as they did as reported by Burnett on UAL93, and most likely had them on the other two flights as well.

The government and the airline cooperated to cover up this report of a gun-- the government to preserve its official story of a hijacking by fanatics wielding only knives, and the airline to protect itself from massive lawsuits if it were known that guns had been slipped through their security systems.

The presence of guns in the possession of the hijackers is a massive blow to the official story. It shows that whoever hijacked the planes was part of a sophisticated organization with deep connections into airport security, and far beyond the capabilities of al-Qaeda or any other Muslim group. Furthermore, the presence of guns, in conjunction with the knives, shows the operation was on one level a frame-up job. You don't have any need to stab people if you have guns. The knives were used to portray an Arab hijacking, and thus frame the Muslim world for the crime and induce enraged Americans to support wars against Muslim countries.




Offline Profile Quote Post
Did AAL11 hijackers have guns? · Hijackers