FBI hand written note: "Shooting reference was on each flight..."

[A-Train]

Where is a gun required???.....pilots were not trained to deal with someone who wanted to take over control of the plane so would have offered little resistance until too late.

Do you think the pilots on the second two flights, AAL77 and UAL93, would have reacted that way even after they had been made aware that other planes had been hijacked and flown into buildings?

 

[A-Train]

And funnily enough, the passenger stabbed, and the person doing the stabbing (as per seat numbers) is identical to the passenger that was supposedly shot and the person that supposedly shot them.

No mystery. No conspiracy.

Why don't you go to Mike's page, as I linked in my original post, and scroll down to page 53. There you will find an FBI report that says flight attendant Amy Sweeney placed one of the hijackers in seat 9B, which is the "passenger" that you are referring to.

In addition, there is this media report based on an interview with the AAL official who spoke with Ong. He also reports that one of the hijackers came from seat 9B, and also that Ong said there was an "injured passenger" in seat 10B, which was assigned to Satam Suqami.

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/news/planes_reconstruction.htm

Now what do we make of that?

Definitely a mystery. Definitely a conspiracy

 

[Dave Rogers]

Admiral Timothy Keating, who was a classmate of Burlingame’s from the Navy and a flight school friend, says, “I was in a plebe summer boxing match with Chick, and he pounded me.… Chick was really tough, and the terrorists had to perform some inhumane act to get him out of that cockpit, I guarantee you.”

Let's face it, inhumane acts aren't exactly out of the question for someone who's planning to crash an airliner into an office building and kill hundreds of people. So let's present a hypothetical: a hijacker takes a stewardess hostage, holds a knofe to her throat, and tells Burlingame he's going to kill her if he doesn't do exactly what he's told. He then tells the co-pilot to get out of his seat, and Burlingame not to move. Hanjour gets into the co-pilot's seat, the guy with the knife tells Burlingame not to move and to look straight forward, then he leans over and cuts his throat. Which bit of that would be more difficult because Burlingame was brave, resourceful and tough? Quite likely he could have beaten the hijackers off in a fair fight, but the nature of terrorism is not to fight fairly.

Dave

 

[A-Train]

Uh, no. I've seen interviews with them. And very sad they were, too - they seem like a nice old couple, but still baffled by what happened.

No need to be petty. But the fact that they give an interview years after the event and do not mention guns does not mean they did not do so on the day of the event.

You still have not addressed why there was a hand written note to the effect that there were references to shootings on all four flights....

 

[cyclonic]

there were two 'muscle hijackers' on each flight whose main purpose was to storm the cockpit and kill the pilots, their training in afghanistan included cutting camels throats.

 

[funk de fino]

[qimg]http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/a063_charles_burnlingame_2050081722-16287.jpg[/qimg]

As for the screaming pilots tape, I've examined it here and determined it to be faked.

Absolutely clueless. Another nose landing gear door type POC claim. A post made over 2 years ago and it got 9 replies. You have nothing.

This tape was in the possession of the government for over four years before being released to the public for the Moussaoui trail. Plenty of time for fakery. Even if you doubt that, you have to admit the tape is "single source evidence." I prefer to avoid that when I do my analysis.

You just like hearsay and made up stuff about joos. How truly sad.

 

[MikeW]

No need to be petty. But the fact that they give an interview years after the event and do not mention guns does not mean they did not do so on the day of the event.

Petty? No, just responding to your accusation of "trying to deflect criticism of the official story onto victims' families like the Hansons".

And my original point remains. They have spoken to the media. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that they would somehow cover this up, or "forget" about it. I expect everything that happened will be seared into their minds for ever more.

You still have not addressed why there was a hand written note to the effect that there were references to shootings on all four flights....

I expect they mean the FAA memo for AA11, the Hanson's friend for UA175, the operator who spoke to Barbara Olson for AA77, and Deena Burnett for UA93.

 

[A-Train]

And my original point remains. They have spoken to the media. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that they would somehow cover this up, or "forget" about it. I expect everything that happened will be seared into their minds for ever more.

I don't think they forgot about it, or are covering anything up. Perhaps they've been persuaded the gun reports were in error. Of course, no one has explained to them the significance-- certainly no one in the so-called truth movement-- of guns; or even told them of the existence of other reports of guns from the other flights.

Keep this in mind as well: We both agree Deena Burnett relayed the report of guns, probably in violation of an order to keep silent. Yet in all the years since, she has not brought that subject up-- not in her book, nor in her numerous speaking engagements. Therefore, for others in her position to likewise refrain from mentioning that point does not in any way show that it didn't happen.

I expect they mean the FAA memo for AA11, the Hanson's friend for UA175, the operator who spoke to Barbara Olson for AA77, and Deena Burnett for UA93.

Now we're getting somewhere! So you're saying maybe Olson from AAL77 (Renee May?) mentioned guns in her allleged calls; and that Peter Olson maybe did as well from UAL175?

So now we have (at least) four gun reports from the four flights, and yet you still doubt the possibility that the hijackers had guns, because the Commission "looked into it" and didn't concur?

This from your site:

"However, as we've seen above, that's not quite what happened. Burnett is actually reported as saying "one of them has a gun". He may have said this because he saw a gun, yes, but it's also possible that he heard one of the hijackers saying he had a gun, or another passenger said they thought one hijacker was armed. It seems unlikely there was an obviously visible weapon as no-one else reported this, but without more information there's no way to be sure."

Now we have that more information, and it was hiding in plain sight on your own webpage all along!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I'm still at a loss as to what this supposed anomaly is supposed to signify. Even if we accept that there was a gun/were guns on the flight, that doesn't change the narrative of radical islamic terrorists taking over FL93 and crashing it one iota. It at best means that there's some dispute over what the hijackers used to take over the flight with. The presence or absence of a gun doesn't change the radar data, the phone calls, or the CVR transcription. Given that, and given that there's at least one other passenger who said that the hijackers had no gun (Jeremy Glick), and other callers who simply didn't mention any (Mark Bingham, Todd Beamer), I simply fail to see what the significance of this is supposed to be.

 

[MikeW]

I don't think they forgot about it, or are covering anything up. Perhaps they've been persuaded the gun reports were in error.

Or perhaps the reports they've provided all along are correct, and the confusion is with the friend who incorrectly mentioned a gun.

Keep this in mind as well: We both agree Deena Burnett relayed the report of guns, probably in violation of an order to keep silent.

I certainly don't agree with the "probably".

Yet in all the years since, she has not brought that subject up-- not in her book, nor in her numerous speaking engagements. Therefore, for others in her position to likewise refrain from mentioning that point does not in any way show that it didn't happen.

Not brought what subject up? Reporting that Tom said one of them had a gun? If that's what you meant, you're incorrect.

"One of them has a gun" - page 61 of Fighting Back; also @ the Tom Burnett Foundation, http://www.tomburnettfoundation.org/tomburnett_transcript.html

So you're saying maybe Olson from AAL77 (Renee May?) mentioned guns in her allleged calls; and that Peter Olson maybe did as well from UAL175?

There's a second hand reports from the operator who relayed Barbara Olson's call (search for Mercy Lorenzo on 911myths), and a third-hand report from this friend of the Hanson family, yes.

So now we have (at least) four gun reports from the four flights, and yet you still doubt the possibility that the hijackers had guns, because the Commission "looked into it" and didn't concur?

Not just for that reason, no. As I said, first-hand reports of the Hanson and Olson conversations, which I'd consider more reliable, don't mention guns. The FAA memo "gun" reference was disowned by them and the person who wrote it. No-one else on Flight 93 reported guns. There are no reports of guns being recovered. And so on.

You can doubtless hand wave away much of this, but the idea that relatives, if they were told by their family member that there were guns on board, will just accept this was a "mistake" and not mention it strikes me as very unlikely.

And the fact is that we can see they're able to mention this. Deena Burnett said "one of them had a gun" in press reports from the beginning, she repeats that in her book, she repeats it on Tom's foundation site.

There's no reason to believe that the relatives are being made to keep quiet, then. I think they're all repeating exactly what they heard, and on the balance of that evidence - all of it, the first hand accounts - it doesn't seem at all likely to me that there were guns on board.

 

[A-Train]

Not brought what subject up? Reporting that Tom said one of them had a gun? If that's what you meant, you're incorrect.

"One of them has a gun" - page 61 of Fighting Back; also @ the Tom Burnett Foundation

I stand corrected. It is mentioned but not emphasized or even discussed.

You can doubtless hand wave away much of this, but the idea that relatives, if they were told by their family member that there were guns on board, will just accept this was a "mistake" and not mention it strikes me as very unlikely.

I don't follow you. Who says they accepted it as a mistake? Who says they didn't mention it? My point is that they did mention it, at first in calls to 911 (which are now not available), and then in interviews to the FBI. That's why someone wrote "shooting reference was on each flight" on the notation sent to the Commission.

Why are they not coming forward now and talking about the guns? Probably because they don't see the point of it, they don't understand the significance of doing so. Like I said in a previous post, they may have been persuaded that there were no guns, while no one notified them of other such reports. And of course, no one in the media, or even in the truth movement, is interested in the subject.

And the fact is that we can see they're able to mention this. Deena Burnett said "one of them had a gun" in press reports from the beginning, she repeats that in her book, she repeats it on Tom's foundation site.

There's no reason to believe that the relatives are being made to keep quiet, then. I think they're all repeating exactly what they heard, and on the balance of that evidence - all of it, the first hand accounts - it doesn't seem at all likely to me that there were guns on board.

Deena's case is an exception. She talked about guns from the beginning, so the cat was out of the bag. Her claim had to be dealt with because it was already out there. The other possible gun reports from UA175 and AA77 were apparently muzzled from the get go.

What would happen if you approached one of these individuals today and asked about the calls? No doubt they would tell you they are not allowed to discuss the calls, and that they would like you to leave them alone. If you persisted, you would be in trouble with the law.

 

[MikeW]

I don't follow you. Who says they accepted it as a mistake?

You suggested that earlier: perhaps the Hansons had been "persuaded the gun reports were in error".

Who says they didn't mention it? My point is that they did mention it, at first in calls to 911 (which are now not available), and then in interviews to the FBI.

Except only two people with first-hand experience of the calls did that (Burnett and Lorenzo). Those reports don't unambiguously show that Burnett or Olson saw guns, and others don't mention guns at all.

Why are they not coming forward now and talking about the guns? Probably because they don't see the point of it, they don't understand the significance of doing so.

Not good enough. Have you ever watched interviews with people who took these calls? They're asked to tell exactly what happened, and I see no reason to believe that they would do otherwise. In fact, if people tried to "persuade" them not to talk about this I'd hazard a guess that they would become very suspicious.

What would happen if you approached one of these individuals today and asked about the calls? No doubt they would tell you they are not allowed to discuss the calls, and that they would like you to leave them alone. If you persisted, you would be in trouble with the law.

Except they are allowed to discuss the calls. Many have, in various newspaper articles, books and documentaries. You're inventing this idea of a gag because it suits you needs, but there's no evidence for it, and plenty of evidence against.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

What would happen if you approached one of these individuals today and asked about the calls? No doubt they would tell you they are not allowed to discuss the calls, and that they would like you to leave them alone. If you persisted, you would be in trouble with the law.

is this based on personal experience or a desire to not be exposed to information that may contradict your beliefs?

 

[dafydd]

Why don't you go to Mike's page, as I linked in my original post, and scroll down to page 53. There you will find an FBI report that says flight attendant Amy Sweeney placed one of the hijackers in seat 9B, which is the "passenger" that you are referring to.

In addition, there is this media report based on an interview with the AAL official who spoke with Ong. He also reports that one of the hijackers came from seat 9B, and also that Ong said there was an "injured passenger" in seat 10B, which was assigned to Satam Suqami.

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/news/planes_reconstruction.htm

Now what do we make of that?

Definitely a mystery. Definitely a conspiracy

Definitely not.

 

[dafydd]

What would happen if you approached one of these individuals today and asked about the calls? No doubt they would tell you they are not allowed to discuss the calls, and that they would like you to leave them alone. If you persisted, you would be in trouble with the law.

Do you have proof of this?

 

[stewieg]

When we start to consider the possibility of guns in the possession of the hijackers, some questions are answered, while others are raised. The mystery of how pipsqueak Arabs managed to quickly overcome eight pilots and completely subdue them without any signal sent to ATC on any flight is solved. The pilots were shot.

Nothing like some good old fashion truther racism to brighten your day.

 

[beachnut]

As for the screaming pilots tape, I've examined it here and determined it to be faked. This tape was in the possession of the government for over four years before being released to the public for the Moussaoui trail. Plenty of time for fakery. Even if you doubt that, you have to admit the tape is "single source evidence." I prefer to avoid that when I do my analysis.

You are no fake, you are the real deal spewing lies and delusions on 911.

You are very disrespectful using a photo of a victim to go with your lies made up out of ignorance. The tapes are real, there are witnesses to the tapes, real time witnesses who heard the screams on ATC freq, you can't figure out 911 and you spread moronic lies.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

If there is one common refrain I run into over and over in researching 9/11 it is that all the eyewitnesses after being interviewed by the FBI were then ordered not to talk about the subject with anyone else. That applies to the phone call recipients, as well as the 911 operators who then took their calls.

The FBI cannot order people not to talk. Its a little thing called the 1st amendment.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

[qimg]http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/a063_charles_burnlingame_2050081722-16287.jpg[/qimg]

As for the screaming pilots tape, I've examined it here and determined it to be faked. This tape was in the possession of the government for over four years before being released to the public for the Moussaoui trail. Plenty of time for fakery. Even if you doubt that, you have to admit the tape is "single source evidence." I prefer to avoid that when I do my analysis.

LOL "I've examined it here[/URL] and determined it to be faked." Wow we are impressed.

 

[BigAl]

The FBI cannot order people not to talk. Its a little thing called the 1st amendment.

They can make your life miserable by declaring you an unindicted co-conspirator. I believe this has even included being imprisoned for indefinite periods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unindicted_co-conspirator