Did AAL11 hijackers have guns?

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Did AAL11 hijackers have guns?; What did Betty Ong report in her call?
Topic Started: Jan 17 2008, 09:17 PM (3,362 Views)
A-Train	Jan 17 2008, 09:17 PM Post #1
Posts: 10 Group: Members Member #47 Joined: 01/15/08	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.
Posts: 10 Group: Members Member #47 Joined: 01/15/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Jan 17 2008, 10:09 PM Post #2
Posts: 2,226 Group: BANNED! Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	I absolutely believe they had guns onboard.
Posts: 2,226 Group: BANNED! Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


Kaiya	Jan 18 2008, 06:35 PM Post #3
Posts: 147 Group: BANNED! Member #104 Joined: 01/17/08	The airlines (by their policies, procedures and design) failed to protect the cockpit so the pilots could land the planes safely. Unless the airlines were shown to be accomplices in the hijacking, I do not see how a jury could find them any more negligent if guns had been used instead of knives. Kaiya
Posts: 147 Group: BANNED! Member #104 Joined: 01/17/08


Deleted User	Jan 19 2008, 06:12 AM Post #4
Deleted User	VERY interesting aspect. Did you note the times given in the memo? The calls at 9:18-8:20, and Flight 11 crashed just after? Did you know Flight 11 was reported airborne at 9:21 based on some unknown FAA info? That's the 'phantom Flight 11' that helped distract defenders from Flight 77. Langley was ging to intercept 11 right after THIS call was supposedly made. Hmmm... Here is the transcript of this call, placed from FAA’s Boston Center to NEADS at 9:21: “FAA: Military, Boston Center. I just had a report that American 11 is still in the air, and it’s on its way towards—heading towards Washington. NEADS: Okay. American 11 is still in the air? FAA: Yes. NEADS: On its way towards Washington? FAA: That was another—it was evidently another aircraft that hit the tower. That’s the latest report we have. NEADS: Okay. FAA: I’m going to try to confirm an ID for you, but I would assume he’s somewhere over, uh, either New Jersey or somewhere further south. NEADS: Okay. So American 11 isn’t the hijack at all then, right? FAA: No, he is a hijack. NEADS: He—American 11 is a hijack? FAA: Yes. NEADS: And he’s heading into Washington? FAA: Yes. This could be a third aircraft.”
Deleted User


A-Train	Jan 19 2008, 02:15 PM Post #5
Posts: 10 Group: Members Member #47 Joined: 01/15/08	Caustic Logic Jan 19 2008, 06:12 AM Did you know Flight 11 was reported airborne at 9:21 based on some unknown FAA info? That's the 'phantom Flight 11' that helped distract defenders from Flight 77. Langley was ging to intercept 11 right after THIS call was supposedly made. Hmmm... David Ray Griffin deals extensively with the issue of "phantom FL11" in his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking. He suggests that though someone in the FAA did mistakenly say that AAL11 was still airborne and heading to Washington, it is extremely unlikely that the Langley fighters were scrambled to meet this phantom flight. The reason the phantom flight scenario was cooked up years after 9/11, according to Griffin, is to explain why the Langley fighters were scrambled. The real reason they were scrambled, of course, was because NEADS had been informed of AAL77 heading to Washington. The military, however, had come up with a new story claiming that they hadn't heard anything from the FAA about AAL77's hijacking until after it had hit the Pentagon. Thus, in order to validate this new story, they had to come up with an excuse as to why the Langley fighters were launched at 9:24. This new excuse was to be the phantom FL11. Meanwhile, the question of why those Langley fighters were initially headed out east over the Atlantic instead of toward any hijacked planes-- real or phantom-- is a mystery that has never been explained.
Posts: 10 Group: Members Member #47 Joined: 01/15/08


Stundie	Jan 21 2008, 12:11 PM Post #6
Posts: 893 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	A-Train Jan 19 2008, 02:15 PM Caustic Logic Jan 19 2008, 06:12 AM Did you know Flight 11 was reported airborne at 9:21 based on some unknown FAA info? That's the 'phantom Flight 11' that helped distract defenders from Flight 77. Langley was ging to intercept 11 right after THIS call was supposedly made. Hmmm... David Ray Griffin deals extensively with the issue of "phantom FL11" in his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking. He suggests that though someone in the FAA did mistakenly say that AAL11 was still airborne and heading to Washington, it is extremely unlikely that the Langley fighters were scrambled to meet this phantom flight. The reason the phantom flight scenario was cooked up years after 9/11, according to Griffin, is to explain why the Langley fighters were scrambled. The real reason they were scrambled, of course, was because NEADS had been informed of AAL77 heading to Washington. The military, however, had come up with a new story claiming that they hadn't heard anything from the FAA about AAL77's hijacking until after it had hit the Pentagon. Thus, in order to validate this new story, they had to come up with an excuse as to why the Langley fighters were launched at 9:24. This new excuse was to be the phantom FL11. Meanwhile, the question of why those Langley fighters were initially headed out east over the Atlantic instead of toward any hijacked planes-- real or phantom-- is a mystery that has never been explained. Hi A-Train, Welcome to the forum, I've seen you post over at the JREF forum and I enjoy reading your posts as they are very informative and you seem to understand FAA/NORAD operational routines. Just to add to your research regarding AA77 and the jets being scrambled for the supposed "Phantom Flight 11" is an obvious lie made up to explain why fighters were scrambled. This also fits in with what Dick Cheney says in his Meet The Press with Tim Russert on 16th Sept 2001 Quote: MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the events of Tuesday. Where were you when you first learned a plane had struck the World Trade Center? VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I was in my office Tuesday morning. Monday, I had been in Kentucky, and the president had been in the White House. Tuesday, our roles were sort of reversed. He was in Florida, and I was in the White House Tuesday morning. And a little before 9, my speechwriter came in. We were going to go over some speeches coming up. And my secretary called in just as we were starting to meet just before 9:00 and said an airplane had hit the World Trade Center, and that was the first one that went in. So we turned on the television and watched for a few minutes, and then actually saw the second plane hit the World Trade Center. And the--as soon as that second plane showed up, that's what triggered the thought: terrorism, that this was an attack... MR. RUSSERT: You sensed it immediately, "This is deliberate"? VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yeah. Then I convened in my office. Condi Rice came down. Her office is right near mine there in the West Wing. MR. RUSSERT: The national security adviser. VICE PRES. CHENEY: National security adviser, my chief of staff, Scooter Libby, Mary Matalin, who works for me, convened in my office, and we started talking about getting the Counterterrorism Task Force up and operating. I talked with the president. I'd given word to Andy Card's staff, who is right next door, to get hold of Andy and/or the president and that I wanted to talk to him as soon as they could hook it up. This call came in, and the president knew at this point about that. We discussed a statement that he might make, and the first statement he made describing this as an act of apparent terrorism flowed out of those conversations. While I was there, over the next several minutes, watching developments on the television and as we started to get organized to figure out what to do, my Secret Service agents came in and, under these circumstances, they just move. They don't say "sir" or ask politely. They came in and said, "Sir, we have to leave immediately," and grabbed me and... MR. RUSSERT: Literally grabbed you and moved you? VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yeah. And, you know, your feet touch the floor periodically. But they're bigger than I am, and they hoisted me up and moved me very rapidly down the hallway, down some stairs, through some doors and down some more stairs into an underground facility under the White House, and, as a matter of fact, it's a corridor, locked at both ends, and they did that because they had received a report that an airplane was headed for the White House. MR. RUSSERT: This is Flight 77, which had left Dulles. VICE PRES. CHENEY: Which turned out to be Flight 77. It left Dulles, flown west towards Ohio, been captured by the terrorists. They turned off the transponder, which led to a later report that a plane had gone down in Ohio, but it really hadn't. Of course, then they turned back and headed back towards Washington. As best we can tell, they came initially at the White House and... MR. RUSSERT: The plane actually circled the White House? VICE PRES. CHENEY: Didn't circle it, but was headed on a track into it. The Secret Service has an arrangement with the F.A.A. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was... MR. RUSSERT: Tracking it by radar. VICE PRES. CHENEY: And when it entered the danger zone and looked like it was headed for the White House was when they grabbed me and evacuated me to the basement. The plane obviously didn't hit the White House. It turned away and, we think, flew a circle and came back in and then hit the Pentagon. And that's what the radar track looks like. The result of that--once I got down into the shelter, the first thing I did--there's a secure phone there. First thing I did was pick up the telephone and call the president again, who was still down in Florida, at that point, and strongly urged him to delay his return. Here he states that Secret Service are tracking AA77 by radar as they thought it was heading to the White House and moved Cheney to a secure location. If you read this interview further, it appears that Cheney is saying that USSS tracked AA77 while it went on to hit the Pentagon. Which begs the question, if they were tracking flight AA77 as Cheney states, then why was nobody at the Pentagon notified? Quote: VICE PRES. CHENEY: I'm convinced of that. Now, you know, it may have been phoned in by a crank, but in the midst of what was going on, there was no way to know that. I think it was a credible threat, enough for the Secret Service to bring it to me. Once I left that immediate shelter, after I talked to the president, urged him to stay away for now, well, I went down into what's call a PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, and there, I had Norm Mineta... MR. RUSSERT: Secretary of Transportation. VICE PRES. CHENEY: ...secretary of Transportation, access to the FAA. I had Condi Rice with me and several of my key staff people. We had access, secured communications with Air Force One, with the secretary of Defense over in the Pentagon. We had also the secure videoconference that ties together the White House, CIA, State, Justice, Defense--a very useful and valuable facility. We have the counterterrorism task force up on that net. And so I was in a position to be able to see all the stuff coming in, receive reports and then make decisions in terms of acting with it. But when I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit. We had word the State Department had been bombed, that a car bomb had gone off at the State Department. Turned out not to be true, but we didn't know that at the time. We had a report that Norm had provided that there were six airplanes that might have been hijacked, and that's what we started working off of, was that list of six. This could be the reason why the fighters were scrambled in the wrong direction. I suggest this was the order that Mineta overheard, hence the Commission (Zelikow) decided to ignore his testimony. Notice something else, this contradicts the commission claims that Cheney arrived at the PEOC at 9:58/10:00am as Cheney states in his own words, he is at the PEOC when he hears that the Pentagon is hit which happened at 9:37am. Cheers Stundie
Posts: 893 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


SPreston	Feb 1 2008, 11:53 AM Post #7
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	What hijackers? There were no hijackers. Those aircraft were remotely flown by expert technicians.



september11	Feb 9 2008, 11:24 PM Post #8
Posts: 2 Group: BANNED! Member #295 Joined: 02/09/08	Domenick DiMaggio CIT Jan 17 2008, 10:09 PM I absolutely believe they had guns onboard. on board where? no planes got hijacked. several of the hijackers are still alive for 1. and for 2 no planes struck anywhere. all the videos you saw of the planes crashing were fake.
Posts: 2 Group: BANNED! Member #295 Joined: 02/09/08


NK-44	Feb 10 2008, 12:28 AM Post #9
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08	september11 Feb 9 2008, 11:24 PM Domenick DiMaggio CIT Jan 17 2008, 10:09 PM I absolutely believe they had guns onboard. on board where? no planes got hijacked. several of the hijackers are still alive for 1. and for 2 no planes struck anywhere. all the videos you saw of the planes crashing were fake. Quote: no planes struck anywhere NPT! Have a nice day....
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08


fortuneteller	Feb 11 2008, 11:44 AM Post #10
Posts: 173 Group: BANNED! Member #152 Joined: 01/20/08	THE PENTAGON just staged a formal announcement of their intention of taking 6 detainees to trial, and then putting them to death. mind you, they were all subjected to waterboarding before signing any confession. the topic can be found in the lounge
Posts: 173 Group: BANNED! Member #152 Joined: 01/20/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Hijackers · Next Topic »