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

little grey rabbit said:
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.
Click to expand...
what else does the manual say about hijackings? anything that might imply that it doesnt refer to suicide missions?
 
little grey rabbit said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are a liar. You have no such manual, any more than you have emails to and from the Hague. Stop posting lies in the threads here. If you want to troll a forum as a psych experiment, do it someplace else.
 
Last edited:
little grey rabbit said:
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.
Click to expand...

Presumably because the aim in a hostage situation, where the duration of the negotiations can't be known in advance, is to maintain control indefinitely. Only in a suicide hijack would the exact moment be known at which it was no longer necessary to maintain control. Think about it for a while; you may be intelligent enough to figure this sort of thing out for yourself.

Dave
 
little grey rabbit said:
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.
Click to expand...

Surely it's a PFLP manual if it's from 1976? And surely it wouldn't have been published in Beirut.

You're not making this up are you rabbi?
 
Last edited:
If guns were used on 9/11 it would be covered up as part of the $15 billion airline industry bailout plan.

Next.
 
Redtail said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I am baffled by this failed logic as well. Profanz, why??

If the smuggling of guns through at least 4 ditinct security checks was secretely determined as an important contributor to the serious economical troubles of two major airlines (not to speak of the lives lost...) why would not the entire industries, UA and AA included, plus relevant state agencies be extremely interested in hiring as much help to solving this problem by making it public? AA and UA are not responsible for airport security, so it was not them who screwed up. Airport security was not bailed out and is probably one of the weaker elements in the chain of interest. If anybody could put blame on them, they would.
 
Profanz said:
If guns were used on 9/11 it would be covered up as part of the $15 billion airline industry bailout plan.

Next.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that any of the 19 hijackers had guns or practiced armed combat in the months prior to 9/11. We do know that the hijackers practiced martial arts right up to the final day.

For someone that planned to fly the plane hundreds of miles to a precise destination, putting bullet holes in the airplane cockpit doesn't sound like a smart plan.

The hijackers didn't want to excite the passengers and attendants. Gunfire would get them excited. Knives are silent.

There is no evidence that guns were used.
 
Easy proof that the "Scanned documents" are bogus:

There are several sections blotted out for "Personal Privacy" and yet they left in a full and intact CREDIT CARD NUMBER (page 5 of your link, most of the way down - it mentions a call using an American Express Card). And then a page after, TWO more credit card numbers are listed. Come on buddy. The only reason the things were blotted out for privacy is because the document is fake and if he had used names of people who weren't involved - it would be blatant.
 
thanks for the interesting research

Later in the day of 9/11, weapons are found planted on board three US airplanes. A US official will say, “These look like inside jobs.” Time magazine will later report, “Sources tell Time that US officials are investigating whether the hijackers had accomplices deep inside the airports’ ‘secure’ areas.” [Time, 9/22/2001]

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091101plantedweapons#a091101plantedweapons
 
Zguy1217 said:
Easy proof that the "Scanned documents" are bogus:
Click to expand...
Or maybe it's just that reprinting credit card numbers associated with people who died more than 8 years ago doesn't qualify as a "personal privacy" issue.
 
Redtail said:
No, I don't. Why would they cover up the terrorists using guns?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom