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

[BigAl]

sigh...

Because they wanted to bail the airlines out not open them up to litigation. The airlines and the security would have been held liable for letting pepper spray, knives, bombs (fake or not), and guns on the planes.

Why?

Why would hijackers that needed the planes to keep flying make a plan that required them to put bullet holes in the equipment in the cockpit?

Gunshots would excite the passengers. Knives wouldn't.

The hijackers are known to have practiced martial arts. There is no evidence that any of them owned guns or practiced with them.

There is no evidence that there were guns on the planes.

 

[Profanz]

Why?

Why would hijackers that needed the planes to keep flying make a plan that required them to put bullet holes in the equipment in the cockpit?

Gunshots would excite the passengers. Knives wouldn't.

The hijackers are known to have practiced martial arts. There is no evidence that any of them owned guns or practiced with them.

There is no evidence that there were guns on the planes.

Oh brother. That's your reply? The evidence is in the reports. There was no reason to dismiss it later on other than liability.

How much did the corporate airlines get again? Billions. BILLIONS. They were the victim RIGHT?

 

[Senenmut]

mikew-

one of those foia requests you sent out was interesting. remember this one:



Originally Posted by Travis
The one about the tampered cockpit door, suspected to be preparation for a hijacking, was pretty chilling in particular.

then mikew stated:
Yes, the idea that the door might be prepared in advance (presumably by someone working at the airport)... I'd like to know if they ever resolved that. Maybe another FOIA request for info on that flight would do the trick?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121362

did you find out anything else regarding this incident. i wonder if that plane was under the watchfull eyes of the israeli security firm???

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh brother. That's your reply? The evidence is in the reports. There was no reason to dismiss it later on other than liability.

How much did the corporate airlines get again? Billions. BILLIONS. They were the victim RIGHT?

What color is the sky in your world?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2556225.stm

I mean, why do you bother posting things that are so freaking false?

Oh yeah, you are a truther.

 

[332nd]

sigh...

Because they wanted to bail the airlines out not open them up to litigation. The airlines and the security would have been held liable for letting pepper spray, knives, bombs (fake or not), and guns on the planes. The families would not have been as quick to settle if guns got on the planes. And if you think guns can't get on a plane read this. It's post 9/11.

http://www.kpho.com/news/19661608/detail.html

And this isn't the only time post 9/11 even with the heightened security.

So they couldn't allow the litigation and go through with the bailout too? Why not?

 

[Senenmut]

and we cant forget this article:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/23/inv.investigation.terrorism/

Box cutters found on other September 11 flights

"A knowledgeable source said two small knives were found on a Delta flight that was supposed to depart Boston, and a box cutter was found on an Atlanta-to-Brussels Delta flight. These planes didn't take off since all flights were grounded after the hijackings. The tools were found when the planes were searched."

"Investigators say they aren't sure whether the tools found were intended for some sort of innocent use or whether their owners may have had malicious intent. But they say the two planes' passenger manifests have been checked. And investigators increasingly believe that the weapons may have been prepositioned by accomplices for use by others. As one U.S. official told Time magazine, "These look like inside jobs."

it would be nice to know how these knives were placed in the planes. were they taped up under a particular seat or were they over by the beverages area to open up boxes?

 

[Profanz]

So they couldn't allow the litigation and go through with the bailout too? Why not?

Because it is less liability. Stop playing stupid. Short knives? Why did the 9/11 commission even change the story from box cutters to short knives. Liability that's why.

There were just as many accounts of other weapons than there were of box cutters. But in the end the investigation claims short knives and nothing else. Bull. What a bunch of bull to save the corporations from litigation. And fuel conspiracy theories.

 

[MikeW]

then mikew stated:
Yes, the idea that the door might be prepared in advance (presumably by someone working at the airport)... I'd like to know if they ever resolved that. Maybe another FOIA request for info on that flight would do the trick?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121362

did you find out anything else regarding this incident.

No, sorry. It's an easy request to make if you want to do it, though - just fire something off to the FBI and ask for any documents referencing that flight number.

 

[332nd]

Because it is less liability. Stop playing stupid. Short knives? Why did the 9/11 commission even change the story from box cutters to short knives. Liability that's why.

You are making very little sense. First you provide a list of weapons that would cause increased liability that includes knives, now you say that they changed the weapons to knives from box cutters so they would have less liability.

Also, none of that explains why they would care about the airlines having less liability.

There were just as many accounts of other weapons than there were of box cutters. But in the end the investigation claims short knives and nothing else. Bull. What a bunch of bull to save the corporations from litigation. And fuel conspiracy theories.

There were accounts of the Washington Monument being destroyed too. Turned out to be false.

 

[CaptJack]

Any pistol using lethal ammo is going to sound loud in a confined space, even with a silencer attached.

Not if they used mind bullets! Game, set, match.

 

[CaptJack]

There were accounts of the Washington Monument being destroyed too. Turned out to be false.

I was listening to NPR on my way to work on 9/11/01 and they said there was a car bomb explosion outside the State Department. Last I checked...

 

[Bell]

I was listening to NPR on my way to work on 9/11/01 and they said there was a car bomb explosion outside the State Department. Last I checked...

Correct. This was reported on CNN as well. Obvious this must be true and has been covered up for not so obvious reasons. Because every first report is the truth and unpolluted by all the knowledge that is gained in the days/weeks/months/years after.

Eta: Damn! Where are my manners? Welcome to the crazy pit, Cap'n

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm not sure why the government would care about liability when deciding whether or not to bail out the airlines. I mean, the banks are, arguably, solely liable for the financial mess of the past few years, yet the government bailed them out.

Talk sense, Profanz. Oh, right...

 

[CaptJack]

Correct. This was reported on CNN as well. Obvious this must be true and has been covered up for not so obvious reasons. Because every first report is the truth and unpolluted by all the knowledge that is gained in the days/weeks/months/years after.

Eta: Damn! Where are my manners? Welcome to the crazy pit, Cap'n

Indeed. As we know, everything reported in the media is absolute fact, always.

TY. I've been a member for years, just never posted. Now I'm wasting all my time watching 9/11 conspiracy videos on YouTube when I should be working...

 

[Bell]

Indeed. As we know, everything reported in the media is absolute fact, always.

TY. I've been a member for years, just never posted. Now I'm wasting all my time watching 9/11 conspiracy videos on YouTube when I should be working...

Right! Now I see. You're even an older member than I am
Good you decided to start posting. At least you know what you are getting into.

The first 9/11 conspiracy video I saw was a DVD that was handed out for free in an American bookstore in Amsterdam. The sleeve showed UA175 just before it crashed into WTC2, and that's what caught my attention. When I played it at home it went on and on about pods and missiles and what not. I fast forwarded to the end, took the DVD out of my player, snapped it in two and dropped it into the bin.

Then I came across Loose Change. All the time I watched it I was thinking "sure", "right" and "what ever". After viewing I Googled "debunk Loose Change" and came across Loose Change Guide which in turn led me here.

 

[CaptJack]

The first 9/11 conspiracy video I saw was a DVD that was handed out for free in an American bookstore in Amsterdam. The sleeve showed UA175 just before it crashed into WTC2, and that's what caught my attention. When I played it at home it went on and on about pods and missiles and what not. I fast forwarded to the end, took the DVD out of my player, snapped it in two and dropped it into the bin.

I totally understand. I am a reasonable person, but I treat truthers with the absolute disdain they deserve. A beloved member of my town died in AA77. I have yet to hear anyone explain where she is if she wasn't on 77. This sort of thing is an insult to her memory.

 

[Profanz]

You are making very little sense. First you provide a list of weapons that would cause increased liability that includes knives, now you say that they changed the weapons to knives from box cutters so they would have less liability.

Also, none of that explains why they would care about the airlines having less liability.

There were accounts of the Washington Monument being destroyed too. Turned out to be false.

You keep playing stupid because that's all you got now. You know exactly what I am talking about and you know it's true. The investigation was hindered because of liability concerns. It's obvious to anyone who wants to open their eyes. You've opened yours but you won't admit it.

 

[Woody-]

I get it, American airlines is called that because they are in charge of the government and not those pesky congressmen and presidents. So they get to decide how issues of national security are investigated.

 

[332nd]

You keep playing stupid because that's all you got now. You know exactly what I am talking about and you know it's true. The investigation was hindered because of liability concerns. It's obvious to anyone who wants to open their eyes. You've opened yours but you won't admit it.

Nope. I seriously don't get what point you're trying to make.

Let's try a different tact. The government wants to bail out the airlines, guns were used so the airlines face more litigation, the government lets the airlines take the hit in court and then gives a speech about how "We can't let the airlines fail because it would wreck American business and then the terrorists would win." so they have to bail the airlines out. The airlines get their loot and the government gets some good pr.

How does that make less sense than what you're proposing?

 

[stewieg]

Oh brother. That's your reply? The evidence is in the reports. There was no reason to dismiss it later on other than liability.

How much did the corporate airlines get again? Billions. BILLIONS. They were the victim RIGHT?

Tell us how much money the industry as a whole has lost in the past 10 years. Also include the number of people who have lost their jobs. And don't forget the number of airlines that have gone under or who have merged with other carriers in order to survive.