Posted on 02/27/2002 5:43:07 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster
From an operational perspective the summary meets all the expected requirements of an executive summary and uses the language and terms you would expect in such a document.For example, the title FAA Principle Security Inspector(PSI) was used, this is an actual title for an individual that is not generally known to the public. There are other examples that establish the legitimacy of this document. I recommend you save this document.
The refusal of the FAA and American Airlines management to brief flight crews on the information that a gun was used in the hijacking represents gross negligence in my opinion. The flight crews are the last line of defense in protecting the passengers and to deny crews this information is inexcusable and this revelation deserves a full investigation. The credibility of the FAA and the U.S. government are on the line here. If a flight attendant on a cell phone reported to American Airlines SOC that a shot had been fired and that information was covered up by the FAA, then they will never be able to salvage their credibility.
This was a carefully orchestrated hijacking. It makes no sense for one hijacker of the 19 to have a gun and risk the entire operation.
The American Airlines SOC is located near the Dallas Ft. Worth Airport. The times in the summary reported from AA are in Central Daylight Time(CDT). The specific times for the stabbing of the crew members and the shooting were established by a member of AA SOC near the DFW airport who was in contact with a flight attendant on board Flight 11. The times recorded are reasonable, since they are Dallas time.
Like they care.
Where's the plane, Ms. Madeline?
The operation wouldn't have been in jeopardy if the gun had been planted, at seat 10B, by a member of the ground crew.
This is a surprising bit of news, but I seriously doubt if WND reported the entire story. There's a reason why the FAA totally discounts this report, and the reason can't be classified or even sensitive. But now that WND has printed half the story, it's incumbent for the FAA and AA to respond to it, perhaps in another publication.
Why would it even matter if it were true? If I'm not mistaken, Congress has already passed legislation awarding compensation to the victims and precluding their families from suing the airlines anyway.
The timeline is not off. This was a first draft and there was a typo, IMHO. 9:25 a.m. should have been 9:45 a.m. The summary reports "at 9:18 a.m., it was reported two crew members in the cockpit were stabbed." This indicates a typo is the reason for the confusion.
If this is real, Ms. Clark might be "smart" to remember differently now....
It's a further indictment of Logan Airport's horrendously lax security.
Or, maybe like they keep saying, one cell of terrorists doesn't know what another cell is doing. We will never know, but what if there were twoplots on this flight instead of one. As long as we are speculating, why not?
vaudine
If this information is true, currently pilots are basing their defense of the cockpit on inaccurate information. Currently, each cockpit door is equipped with a locking mechanism that is supposed to prevent a cockpit intrusion. If the hijackers are armed, this device will be of little consequence. If this new information is true it may motivate more pilots to take a more proactive role in profiling. If a pilot stands in the door and monitors the boarding of the passengers and spots four male Middle Eastern types between the ages 20-35, he may take a closer look at the passenger list if he has reason to believe they may be armed, based on this new information.
Well, it doesn't have to be a sinister motive, you know. What's "the motive" for the US press prissy-footing around about Pearl's beheading? Maybe the NY Post finally said something yesterday, but that's all I've seen. Maybe they were trying to go easy on the family, (like they did with the Marine dragging in Mogadishu. -not!)
Those two alone seem like very plausable, non-sinister, non-tinfoil motives for a government "cover-up" or more like "sweep-under the rug."
Nevertheless, if this was a short term coverup to protect us from ourselves, then the government has truly become the nanny of the baby sheeple.
When this was first reported right after 9/11, I don't remember there being anything said about someone having been shot. It just said that the passenger was killed by one of the hijackers, presumably with the box-cutter used on the others. Maybe the Al Queda guy found out that Lewin was Jewish and decided to kill him first presuming that Lewin would have had military training thus would be a threat to the hijackers.
But if the story had mentioned a gun, I probably would have remembered it, also wondering how they'd gotten one on board.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.