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

[A-Train]

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.

Please direct me to where I can watch these interviews of the people who took the calls. You mentioned the Hansons previously. Where can I get that video?

...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.

Did I also invent Burnett's claim of a gun on UA93? Did I invent the memo sent to FAA brass claiming a shooting on AA11? Did I invent the notes handed over by the FBI to the 9/11 Commission in which the phrase 'shooting reference was on each flight'?

The subject of this thread is the evidence for guns in the possession of the hijackers. The evidence of that is overwhelming-- both in terms of direct evidence and circumstantial. But you won't believe it because you think these people would have come forward and that their words would have been broadcast to the world.

You seem to be a reasonable and intelligent researcher who is aware of all the facts. But I have to wonder what your thought processes are. You think that Tom Burnett reported a gun, but that was either a mistake, or someone else's false report? Then numerous people at American Airlines made mistakes that led to a memo reporting a shooting? Then at the FBI someone mistakenly writes about references to shootings on all the flights? All these "mistakes" about guns-- isn't that quite a coincidence? And all the "mistakes" just happen to paint a scenario that perfectly explains how the pilots were dispatched? Do you really believe so many "mistakes" could have been made that all happen to point to the same logical conclusion?

Mike, are you sure you're not the one twisting the arguments to suit your needs?

 

[Thunder]

if the hijackers were really Joo-Mossad agents, how come Al Qaeda took the blame?

 

[Drudgewire]

if the hijackers were really Joo-Mossad agents, how come Al Qaeda took the blame?

Bin Laden lost the Superbowl 35 bet with Sharon and those were the stakes. He didn't do enough research and assumed Amani Toomer was Muslim. Upside is right about the time Ray Lewis said he was going to Disneyworld, Osama decided New York deserved it and he would be proud to take the blame.

 

[MikeW]

Please direct me to where I can watch these interviews of the people who took the calls. You mentioned the Hansons previously. Where can I get that video?

I don't know. I've seen them on the longer documentaries, not news clips or debunking programmes. I don't have time to go browsing right now, I'm not sure that anyone else is in the mood to help you out here, but...

If they are, one clip I particularly have in mind has the two of them being interviewed. They're a fairly elderly couple. The father explains how Peter Hanson called, said they'd been hijacked, I think that they had knives, the plane was flying unsteadily - did he say people were being sick? not quite sure - and he wondered whether they were going to fly into a building somewhere, but "dad, don't worry, if they do it'll be very quick" (or something like that).

Then Hanson's mother says something else, reports that the call had been cut off, they looked at the TV screen where the news was on and saw an explosion on the other tower. And she's not even tearful at that point, just still almost surprised, shocked, as though it's not sunk in.

Anyway, the point isn't to retell my opinions, just hopefully remind everyone else. Anyone recognise this, remember seeing the Hansons talk of that call, and more specifically, which documentary(-ies) they were in?

ETA: noticed a fragment of an interview at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glPZ-0uGmDU , but only a fragment, too short to be much use.

Mike, are you sure you're not the one twisting the arguments to suit your needs?

Quite sure. Yes, there is conflicting evidence, but the evidence for guns is weak (not a single named individual is reported as saying they say a gun), disowned in some cases (FAA memo), unsupported by people who took calls in others (Hansons, Olson), unsupported by others who made calls, specifically contradicted in some cases (Lyz Glick says Jeremy told her the hijackers didn't have guns).

There is no "twisting" involved on my part. That's the situation. That's also why you have to invent the idea of a gag, to make these inconvenient truths go away. But as I keep saying, there's no evidence for a gag, either. People have talked, and continue to do so. So on balance I think it's unlikely that there were guns on board.

And as we're now saying the same things, over and over again, it's probably a good time to stop. Let's see if someone else can help re: the Hansons, remember the interview I'm talking about & point you in the right direction.

 

[A-Train]

ETA: noticed a fragment of an interview at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glPZ-0uGmDU , but only a fragment, too short to be much use.

Thank you, Mike. I really do admire your thoroughness. That YouTube snippet is from a TLC documentary called: "Flight 175 As the World Watched." As it happens this documentary will be rebroadcast tomorrow evening on TLC at midnight (Central).

I plan to watch it. But do you really think there's going to be something there that's going to further our discussion here?

 

[MikeW]

"Flight 175 As the World Watched." As it happens this documentary will be rebroadcast tomorrow evening on TLC at 8:00PM (Eastern?).

That's fortunate. I don't think that's the interview I was trying to remember - I don't remember the use of picture in picture, for instance, to tie up their testimony with the impact - but I guess it doesn't really matter.

I plan to watch it. But do you really think there's going to be something there that's going to further our discussion here?

I doubt it. I've already given you my opinion: I don't see that any of the relatives are going to censor painful retellings like this because of outside prompting. And any attempt to do that would be worse than the problem (admitting to a gun on flight 175, say, wouldn't change much; being caught trying to cover it up would provoke far more anger and suspicion).

Of course that's only an opinion. Your opinion is already different, and I doubt very much that it'll change as a result of watching this. I think it's probably still worth seeing, though, just for the human interest angle. I found the Hanson's account to be the saddest of all the relatives, probably because the call continued almost up to the last moment, and they saw the explanation immediately, on the TV news.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Definitely a mystery. Definitely a conspiracy

It can't be both. If it was a conspiracy, there would be evidence, not all this quote-mining, guessing and supposing you're doing, and it wouldn't be a mystery.

Or perhaps you meant "conspiracy theory"?

 

[A-Train]

This thread seems to have run its course. I meant to present evidence, and have that evidence discussed. Instead the debate has turned on the usual concept held so dearly by defenders, that is, the belief on their part that nothing can be covered up. That is the one characteristic that binds all those who believe the official story of 9/11. They believe that if any event occurs, those who witness it will report it, and those receiving the report will broadcast it to the rest of us.

Thus the debate about 9/11 turns not on the evidence of what happened on that day, but on the nature of our society and especially of the character of the media from which we get nearly all our information about an event like the attacks of 9/11.

Needless to say I believe much has been covered up, and I'm not the only one. As a coda to this thread, I present the following testimony made to the 9/11 Commission by a leader of the FAA's "red team," which conducted covert security inspections:

“There are serious indications that the FAA deceived the public about what happened on 9/11. On the afternoon of September 11, 2001, I was working in one of the FAA operations centers collecting information on details of what happened during the hijacking. We received information that a firearm was used on one of the hijacked aircraft.… That evening the administrator of FAA requested an executive summary covering the day’s activities, and this information about a gun was included in the summary. Days later, without any explanation or questioning of the summary’s author, the administrator publicly announced that no guns had been used in the hijacking. Several months passed when the press re-surfaced this issue. FAA’s initial response was that no so such executive summary existed. Later, when confronted with the document, FAA admitted the executive summary existed, but denied its accuracy. Sometime later I learned that another operations center also received a report that a firearm was used.…"[emph. added]

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=aa11

 

[MikeW]

This thread seems to have run its course. I meant to present evidence, and have that evidence discussed. Instead the debate has turned on the usual concept held so dearly by defenders, that is, the belief on their part that nothing can be covered up. That is the one characteristic that binds all those who believe the official story of 9/11. They believe that if any event occurs, those who witness it will report it, and those receiving the report will broadcast it to the rest of us.

Oh, what nonsense. What's actually happening here is this.

The balance of evidence suggests there were no guns on board.

I know this. You know this.

The difference between us is that go beyond the evidence to assume a coverup, because that is what you want to believe. Anyone can look back and see that you've presented not the slightest evidence for this, though. You assert it strongly, but you don't actually have any evidence, just guesses that you apply to try and make inconvenient contradictory evidence go away.

So: the Hansons didn't mention a gun. Lori Lynn Keyton/ Ted Olson didn't mention a gun. No-one else (aside from possibly Tom Burnett) on Flight 93 mentioned a gun. No gun was reported at the site. The FAA disowned their gun memo, and so on.

But was this all so sensitive that it was covered up? It seems not - Deena Burnett's book and website references the gun report. The FBI released documents to the 9/11 Commission with gun references. Those have been released to the public. Where's the cover-up?

You can choose to make guesses, if you like, say "maybe the Hanson's were persuaded", maybe other relatives were made to shut up, maybe Olson is lying even though this is about the death of his wife, maybe the FAA are involved in the coverup, maybe it's just a mistake that some gun references have made it to the public arena...

But don't pretend that this is anything more than guessing. And don't pretend that you've somehow got a pile of evidence that no-one else here wants to discuss, because that's really a considerable distance from the truth.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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

Yes but that did not and would not happen to someone talking to a newspaper etc about the last call from their child or parent. Not a chance in hell they would get away with that with 911 victims families.

 

[carlitos]

I meant to present evidence, and have that evidence discussed

Right. Did the "pipsqueak Arabs" live in caves?

 

[beachnut]

... Needless to say I believe much has been covered up, and I'm not the only one. As a coda to this thread, I present the following testimony made to the 9/11 Commission by a leader of the FAA's "red team," which conducted covert security inspections:

You have no evidence of any cover-up; 8 years of complete failure and all you have is a delusion you make up due to ignorance. You are unable to take all the evidence and weed out the false information. Failure to do so make you keep your hate based delusions.

Why did they stab people when they had guns? Why did the terrorists fail to use their guns to stop the Passengers on Flight 93? Your gun delusion fails! Why would they risk the mission being caught with guns? Looks like 911 terrorists are smarter than 911 truth, but the rocks in my backyard pond are too.

 

[A-Train]

Oh, what nonsense...

I know this. You know this.

......that is what you want to believe. you've presented not the slightest evidence for this, though.

.....you don't actually have any evidence, just guesses that you apply to try and make inconvenient contradictory evidence go away.

....Where's the cover-up?

Does all this also apply to FAA security official Bogdan Dzakovic?

(He's the one responsible for the quote from the Commission proceedings that I provided in my last post-- that you apparently didn't read.)

 

[MikeW]

Does all this also apply to FAA security official Bogdan Dzakovic?

I was asking where's the coverup of what the relatives saw and heard, given that gun references have been made public. Dzakovic's allegations do not answer that question.

And if you look at what Dzakovic is saying, there's little new there. He reports that the FAA received a report that a firearm was used: we know that, Janet Riffe says so. He reports that another operations centre received a report of a firearm being used: that may be something new, it may just be a reference to a report we know already. The bulk of his problem with the FAA predates 9/11 and is that they were covering up their lax security.

So: what does that change? Betty Ong still says on tape that someone was "stabbed in business class", not shot. A purser, stabbed. Doesn't mention guns. Michael Woodward still says Amy Sweeney told him people were stabbed, not shot. Doesn't mention guns. So why is it that these first-hand reports are trumped by an FAA memo that couldn't even get most of the crash times close to correct?

 

[little grey rabbit]

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

Back in the day when the Palestinian pros were doing the hijacking they had strict rules about all passengers having to sit with their heads down between their knees and not talk to each other.

I don't hold with these new fangled techniques about allowing them to chat on phones, get up and move around, set up little conspiracy talking shops down the back and lets roll etc etc.

Call me an old stick in the mud

 

[Dave Rogers]

Back in the day when the Palestinian pros were doing the hijacking they had strict rules about all passengers having to sit with their heads down between their knees and not talk to each other.

I don't hold with these new fangled techniques about allowing them to chat on phones, get up and move around, set up little conspiracy talking shops down the back and lets roll etc etc.

Call me an old stick in the mud

It's surprising how much less you have to do to keep control of a situation for around an hour or less, compared to how much you have to do to keep control of it for several days, isn't it? The lack of strict control almost suggests that the 9/11 hijackers weren't expecting to have to keep control of the planes for very long. Now, if they'd been planning to crash them rather than land them for several days' negotiations, that might make sense...

Dave

 

[little grey rabbit]

It's surprising how much less you have to do to keep control of a situation for around an hour or less, compared to how much you have to do to keep control of it for several days, isn't it? The lack of strict control almost suggests that the 9/11 hijackers weren't expecting to have to keep control of the planes for very long. Now, if they'd been planning to crash them rather than land them for several days' negotiations, that might make sense...

Dave

Actually my of PLO Flight hijack operations manual published Beirut 1976 doesn't make a distinction between the length of flight and the need to maintain strict passenger control.

It says (rough translation), the moment you take over, establish complete domination over and submission of passengers, using the heads between knees technique.

If only those Dancing Palestinians (TM) had thought to provide a copy of the manual to OBL, we would have had a smoking ruin of a White House as well.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Or should that have been a smoking ruin of WTC7?

Oh wait, that happened anyway

 

[NutCracker]

Back in the day when the Palestinian pros were doing the hijacking they had strict rules about all passengers having to sit with their heads down between their knees and not talk to each other.

I don't hold with these new fangled techniques about allowing them to chat on phones, get up and move around, set up little conspiracy talking shops down the back and lets roll etc etc.

Call me an old stick in the mud

Please elaborate on the significance and implications of this.

 

[Bell]

Or should that have been a smoking ruin of WTC7?

Oh wait, that happened anyway

Neither the White House, nor WTC7. But stick around and learn!