Hijacker shot passengeron Flight 11

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | February 27, 2002 | Paul Sperry

[TigerLikesRooster]

WorldNetDaily: Hijacker shot passenger on Flight 11: FAA memo

WEDNESDAY
FEBRUARY 27
2002

  Page 1 News

  Page 2 News

  LocalNetDaily

  Commentary

  Classified Ads

  Live Chat

-->   Letters

  People Search

  TalkNetDaily

  SportsNetDaily

  Health

  Weather

  TV Guide

  Movies

  Business

  Stocks

  ShopNetDaily

---

---

DAY OF INFAMY 2001
Hijacker shot passenger
on Flight 11: FAA memo
'One bullet fired,' killing 9B occupant, but agency claims report was in error

---

Posted: February 27, 2002
5:35 p.m. Eastern

By Paul Sperry
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON - An internal Federal Aviation Administration memo summarizing the Sept. 11 hijackings says a passenger aboard American Airlines Flight 11 was shot to death by a single bullet, WorldNetDaily has learned.

The FAA claims the memo, time-stamped Sept. 11 at 5:30 p.m., was written in error.

"It was a first draft," said FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown in a phone interview today. "There was no gun."

She said a final draft of the executive summary, received by FAA Administrator Jane Garvey, does not include the account of a gun being fired aboard the plane.

Brown refused to release the final draft, however, arguing it is "protected information."

WorldNetDaily has obtained a copy of the first draft of the memo, which can be viewed here.

Here is the key excerpt, which was very specific:

"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."

Related story:

American denies giving gun info to FAA

---

Paul Sperry is Washington bureau chief for WorldNetDaily.

E-mail to a Friend

Printer-friendly version

NEWS:
	Stealth plan to infiltrate pro-life centers
	U.S. airport security: Any better under feds?
	Muslim militants threaten villagers
	Arafat 'loses' $50 million payroll
COMMENTARY:
	Friends like Pakistan? By Paul Sperry
	Media's inverted morality By Ilana Mercer
	Saudi rape story redux By Joseph Farah

---

---

E-MAIL PAUL SPERRY | GO TO PAUL SPERRY'S ARCHIVE

GO TO PAGE 1 | GO TO PAGE 2 | GO TO COMMENTARY

SEARCH WND | CONTACT WND

---

© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.

---

webmaster@worldnetdaily.com
--> news@worldnetdaily.com--> Contact WND

[honway]

Based on what little information that has been made available to the public, I believe the Executive Summary linked in the original WND article is legitimate.

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.

[Dog Gone]

Maybe, but the government has no motive for covering this up that I can think of. If this guy had a gun, he appears to have been the only one. Certainly none of the hijackers on the Pennsylvania flight had one.

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.

[honway]

The timeline is off as well. American Flight 11 crashed at 8:45 EDT, not 9:25 am. UAL Flight 175 crashed at 9:03 am, not 9:30 am.

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.

[CommiesOut]

"then they will never be able to salvage their credibility"

Like they care.
Where's the plane, Ms. Madeline?

[nycgal]

It makes no sense for one hijacker of the 19 to have a gun and risk the entire operation

The operation wouldn't have been in jeopardy if the gun had been planted, at seat 10B, by a member of the ground crew.

[Dog Gone]

Sure, if we want to believe, for some reason, that a gun was used, I'm sure we can come up with a lot of different scenarios.

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.

[honway]

I wouldn't expect a timeline on an accurate report to be off by that much.

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.

[willyone]

You need to learn how to read. the hijacker shot the passenger. Duh.

[willyone]

Says who? Sources.

[sam_paine]

One could presumably contact Ms. Clark and ask her about the gun.

If this is real, Ms. Clark might be "smart" to remember differently now....

[nycgal]

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

It's a further indictment of Logan Airport's horrendously lax security.

[vaudine]

Makes sense if you look at this guy who supposedly shot an important Israeli Jew. Maybe that was his PERSONAL Jihad, to personally kill this man before the whole plane was taken out.

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

[honway]

Why would it even matter if it were true?

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.

[sam_paine]

Maybe, but the government has no motive for covering this up that I can think of.

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!)

• MOTIVE? The simple benevolent intention of maintaining calm in the flying public, and the public in general? The govm't could not afford to have such a gaping security breakdown frighten off the pax, possibly killing many airlines and causing general economic chaos.
• MOTIVE? Intelligence Control. National Security secret. At the time, who was attacking us? We didn't know. The attackers did. How would the attackers get feedback on how the plan was executed? Via reports like this. It might've seemed like a good idea to suppress this info at the time to confuse followon attack planning.

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.

[SuziQ]

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."

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.

[185JHP]

Plus the fact, who says all these dementos would do it "by the book", anyway? This guy could have been freelancing, paying someone to plant the gun for him.