Posted on 02/27/2002 5:43:07 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster
Well, they just arrested 20 folks at Boston's Logan Airport (where this flight originated) with forged identities that had " access to all areas of the airport, including terminals, baggage areas, screened passenger checkpoints and runways."
I'd say that with the "secure" folks being that badly screened (if at all) it might not be too hard to have the cleaning/food services guy put a gun or bomb in the seat cushion/toilet/magazine rack/whatever.
Or maybe a gun was planted in the terrorist's bag far away from the plane by a mere baggage handler or a team of security screener(s) inside the airport!!!
And you think car bombs didn't go off?
to clarify before I'm crucified...I meant a security team searching carry-on bags,etc....I know it'd be hard to "draw" from the cargo hold!
I sit corrected. Thank you. I should think before I reply. So what do you think, is the story about the gun a mistake or a fabrication?
Unfortunately, the WND has been so willing to present itself as the newspaper of record for conspiracy theorists over the last couple of years that they have lost much of their credibility amongst the (far far larger) community of more skeptical readers. The FAA and AA will completely ignore the WND story until and unless some more "legitimate" publication also publishes it.
What a joke.
Anyone seriously think that a flight attendant is going to count what seat a skyjacker was in when he shot a passenger - and in what seat the dead passenger was riding?
The flight recorders from the planes that hit the WTC have yet to be recovered.
If this isn't a hoax, it sure is the next best thing!
Gun planted by staff at Logan Airport perhaps?That would be consistent with the PROVEN accounts of plans to hijack at least one more plane, and the PROVEN accounts of security sweeps finding (at least) boxcutters on more planes.
JFK is at least 10 times worse than Logan. So it is believable there was other on-the-ground assistance, too. It also makes the reasons for choosing JFK stronger - easier to corrupt or infiltrate.
AND it would be VERY inconvenient for ailines to have to really implement REAL security quickly. Lots of motive for coverup.
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.You have any doubt?
Not on 9/11. Except if you subscribe to the wacko conspiracy theories that Al Qaeda planted half a dozen thousand-pound bombs in the WTC to knock it down.
Yeah, and the death could have just as easily been explained because the passenger had had his throat cut. If some hair-trigger FAA bureaucrat heard that a passenger was killed by a hijacker, absent other information, he might have assumed it was done by a gun -- and reported it as such. A lot of wild stories came out on 9/11. Given the choice between believing that this is another or believing that there has been a massive cover-up in the FAA, you can bet a tin-foil-hat I find it easier to believe it was a wild story. Obviously others find it comforting to see conspiracies everywhere (the truth is out there), but I don't concern myself with the fears of the feeble-minded.
While your assertion may or may not be true, the problem is that you assertion is highly uninformative. You did not argue anything about why this particular information has to be believed or not. Your statement is more like drive-by-hit by some shill from some agency. I hope that is not the case. If so, you had better be more specific about your assertion.
I don't suppose that the Operations Center tapes their calls. At the very least the phone company would have a record of it. Can we get the name of the individual that received the call?
I can tell you there are a LOT of foreign-born Pakistanis and Arabs in airline aircraft maintenance organizations and working for contractors.
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.Well, there is a very simple answer to that one: If it is true there was a gun on board, the deal to immunize the airlines from liability could be challenged on grounds of bad faith. Similarly, you cannot "trick" someone into signing a contract without risking having the contract being challenged later. It is the difference between tough negotiation and trickery.
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.