Stewardess ID'd Hijackers Early, Transcripts Show

The New York Observer ^ | February 12, 2004 | Gail Sheey

[quantim]

Hearing the taped voice of a courageous flight attendant as she calmly narrated the doomed course of American Airlines Flight 11 brought it all back. The frozen horror of that September morning two and a half years ago. The unanswered questions. Betty Ong narrated that first hijacking right up to the moment that Mohamed Atta drove the Boeing 767 into the north tower of the World Trade Center.

Twenty-three minutes into her blow-by-blow account, Ong’s voice abruptly ceased. "What’s going on, Betty?" asked her ground contact, Nydia Gonzalez. "Betty, talk to me. I think we might have lost her."

Emotional catharsis, yes. There was scarcely a dry eye in the Senate hearing room where 10 commissioners are probing the myriad failures of our nation’s defenses and response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. But answers? Not many. The most shocking evidence remains hidden in plain sight.

The politically divided 9/11 commission was able to agree on a public airing of four and a half minutes from the Betty Ong tape, which the American public and most of the victims’ families heard for the first time on the evening news of Jan. 27. But commissioners were unaware of the crucial information given in an even more revealing phone call, made by another heroic flight attendant on the same plane, Madeline (Amy) Sweeney. They were unaware because their chief of staff, Philip Zelikow, chooses which evidence and witnesses to bring to their attention. Mr. Zelikow, as a former adviser to the pre-9/11 Bush administration, has a blatant conflict.

"My wife’s call was the first specific information the airline and the government got that day," said Mike Sweeney, the widowed husband of Amy Sweeney, who went face to face with the hijackers on Flight 11. She gave seat locations and physical descriptions of the hijackers, which allowed officials to identify them as Middle Eastern men—by name—even before the first crash. She gave officials key clues to the fact that this was not a traditional hijacking. And she gave the first and only eyewitness account of a bomb on board.

"How do you know it’s a bomb?" asked her phone contact.

"Because the hijackers showed me a bomb," Sweeney said, describing its yellow and red wires.

[quantim]

Kerry's next attack point?

[sgtbono2002]

I dont understand how this indicates George Bush in the plane crash.

[Thebaddog]

It just makes you cry a little to read about those brave souls on that morning. Forget the politics and pray for their families and their peace.

And I do think that the whole story should be told in their memories.

[spyone]

The plane was probably shot down, which they can't tell us about, just like they couldn't tell us about the Oklahoma bombing being an Iraq operation they were monitoring without stopping it.

[abclily]

Shot down before it went into the tower?

[RightWingAtheist]

The author is a notorious Clintonista whose Hilary's Choice, is one of the worst pieces of Clinton hagiography.

[Kirkwood]

Hindsight is always 20/20. What seems obvious now, was totally unclear on 9-11 when all hell was breaking loose. Looking at timelines and seeing huge chunks of time to react to what was going one assumes that everyone involved had a complete understanding of what was taking place, what was about to take place, and how to mount a perfect defense. The same can be said for any disaster that has taken place, not just 9-11.

[Mr. Lucky]

You're one sick little puppy. Could you explain how someone shot the plane down so as to make it hit the World Trade Center tower (and then, minutes later, apparently shot down another one to hit the other tower)?

[dmz]

I think he means the flight 93. but i completely agree with your sentiment nonetheless.

wait, were those black helicopters flying over my house?

[Restorer]

I believe the claim is that Flight 93 was shot down, which is indeed possible.

[eno_]

It is impossible to tell if the plane was shot down, but there are some very odd things about flight 93 that could indicate the terrorists could have had a bomb. There was debris in a lake a great distance from the impact. That could have happened due to a shoot-down, or the terrorists may have exploded a bomb before being overwhelmed by passengers trying to fight them.

There were other reports of a gun on one of the hijacked flights, and other things that are not widely discussed. I think 9/11 involved much worse security breakdowns than has been admitted.

[Pagey]

Read tonight BUMP!

[quantim]

or the terrorists may have exploded a bomb before being overwhelmed by

It is a confusing article by a confused person.  The author seems to contend/complain that the planes were NOT shot down and could have been.  Yet suggests at the same maybe it was shot down (or bombed) so which is it?  To be sure there are many unanswered questions that need to be addressed.  However, to play upon all our emotions and then muddy the article is classic Clinton methodology.

[mathluv]

Isn't this author one of hellary's best buds?

[steve-b]

I believe the claim is that Flight 93 was shot down, which is indeed possible.

Oh, puh-leeze. This theory is the provence of people who think that "Occam's Razor" is the brand of box cutter used by the terrorists.

[Jimmy Valentine]

I heard this played over the television. I cried like a baby.

Regards,

[Monty22]

It seems they had chemical weapons, at the very least some form of chemical spray, and a threat of a bomb going off if they didn't follow directions. Whether the bomb was real or not doesn't matter much though.

[happygrl]

I've always thought that the PA plane was shot down.

That's what the first reports were. I always go with the "pre-spin" info.

[tommix2]

However, to play upon all our emotions and then muddy the article is classic Clinton methodology. I read the whole article. It is even more disgusting towards the end. She is intent on attacking President Bush. That seems to be her aim. The 9/11 incident was a dreadful tragedy in which everyone, caught by surprise, did the best they could. And here this writer is trying to use this tragedy to harm President Bush. It is low down, despicable. She cares more about hurting Bush than about the people who lost their lives or the people who lost loved ones. It is so sad that the Democrats are stooping so low.