Eyewitness: "I Never Heard the Word 'Bomb'"

[Trillo]

(moderators, according to Google News, this story is 3 hours old at the time of posting, here's the google news link as proof: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=eyewitness&btnG=Search+News )

At least one passenger aboard American Airlines Flight 924 maintains the federal air marshals were a little too quick on the draw when they shot and killed Rigoberto Alpizar as he frantically attempted to run off the airplane shortly before take-off.

"I don't think they needed to use deadly force with the guy," says John McAlhany, a 44-year-old construction worker from Sebastian, Fla. "He was getting off the plane." McAlhany also maintains that Alpizar never mentioned having a bomb.

"I never heard the word 'bomb' on the plane," McAlhany told TIME in a telephone interview. "I never heard the word bomb until the FBI asked me did you hear the word bomb. That is ridiculous." Even the authorities didn't come out and say bomb, McAlhany says. "They asked, 'Did you hear anything about the b-word?'" he says. "That's what they called it."

more at:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1138965,00.html

(I looked for this news after noticing the DU moderators took down a nearly identical post in the last 20 minutes, by another DUer, not sure what forum)

[NVMojo]

1. the truth will come out.

[VegasWolf]

35. I fear that there is no truth under Bush.

:sarcasm:

[LiberalinNC]

2. "Covering their asses" Shoot first, ask questions later!

It's really sad that this bi-polar guy was killed the way he was.

[Toots]

72. Isn't that the new law in Florida?

Didn't Florida just pass a law saying people had the right to use deadly force if they even suspected a person may harm them? The law appears to be on this Marshal's side so I don't expect any repercussions....He has established a precedent now....

[TomInTib]

3. Man, this is unravelling quickly.R emember the bulky coat the guy

in the London tube was wearing that was really a denim jacket?

"the b-word"? is this the best our highly trained FBI can do?

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. Well, they had to say "b-word". It's illegal to say "bomb" on a

plane. Think they want to get shot?

[President Kerry]

86. i'm sorry, to me the b-word is something else..

something you can use on a plane as much as anywhere. How infantile.

[shanti]

4. now, THIS sounds like "taser" time!

wonder why they didn't try this first?

[tridim]

6. At the very least, just shoot him in the leg

Where did they shoot him, in the head?

This story is getting stinky really fast.

[Cha]

10. It seems they don't know

how to just "shoot in the leg".

[dcfirefighter]

12. Shoot to stop or don't shoot at all

traditionally, LEOs are trained to shoot center of mass, and told that shooting someone in the leg means that that person shouldn't have been shot at all.

Israeli LEOs, who have quite a bit of experience with this sort of thing, are trained make head shots - more instantly debilitating, preventing would be bombers from activating their bombs.

[PassingFair]

34. With such crack shots...

it's a WONDER that they still have trouble over there in Palisraelia!
You'd think this shoot to kill thing would have solved all those problems...

[satireV]

38. Yes indeed. shoot to stop them, not wing them

BTW.

When a cop shows up at my door..... I feel scared.

When a firefighter shows up at my door.... I feel relieved.

:)
:patriot:

[TheWraith]

61. Then the people who train the LEOs are very stupid.

For one thing, I'm shocked to hear that cops are actually trained to shoot at all. Most of them that I've seen and heard of can't hit a target worth shit. Just look at number of rounds expended in a shooting by US cops, and compare it to a shooting by cops in Canada or the UK, where they still teach them how to aim. No offense to the good cops, but our training requirements aren't up to snuff, at least in most of the country.

Back to the original point, there's a huge list of reasons why you wouldn't just want to shoot for center-of-mass. For one thing, if that's the only place you can hit a person, then a kevlar jacket can stop you from taking them out. In that case, you need a head shot, as you outlined. For another reason, there are myriad scenarios where you might need to neutralize someone without killing them, and that requires acutal marksmanship.

A LEO should be trained on how to select a target according to the situation, and hit that target, not just point their gun at the center-of-mass and keep pulling the trigger.

[IA_Seth]

83. False Logic

Just a point...you really can't determine accuracy by the number of rounds fired by a police officer. Most departments (at least locally, and I believe nationally) are trained that if shots must be fired, then its shoot to kill, along those same lines they are trained to fire until all movement ceases, to ensure death. That said, officers may often times may shoot many times over what is actually "needed" to down their target.

I am not saying I agree with that approach, but just thought I would point it out.

And to the second point, its takes more than marksmanship to aim for an appendage if there is any movement by that target whatsoever. To try to say that police officers should aim to wound, and at the same time try taking into account the safety of all bystanders, is asking a bit much. If deadly force is authorized (the use of a gun), I believe kill shots would be most appropriate.

[Tesha]

131. It's also a lot handier ex post facto.

> Most departments (at least locally, and I believe nationally) are
> trained that if shots must be fired, then its shoot to kill, along
> those same lines they are trained to fire until all movement ceases,
> to ensure death.

It's also a lot handier ex post facto as it's a rare dead person
who can testify against the cops vis-a-vis the shooting.

Tesha

[Historic NY]

13. Police are not trained to wound.....wounded people can still kill.

Point blank center on mass has the best chance of taking the bad guy out. In many cases people that are totally whacked out (drugs, etc) will still keep going even after several hits. I agree the story is way out there. This is a case for also having a TASER, but then if he died many way people would still be complaining. Did they over react, maybe. Did they have reasonable belief he possibly had a bomb, possibly. Could it been handled differently, who knows. The officers only have fractions of a second to react. The suspects actions might have telegraphed he had something in the carry on. Some reports have him going for something inside the bag. He then stopped and turned on the officers. Thats a bad thing to do, especially if you not thinking right or responding to verbal commands. Remember this happened on the jet way outside the plane. Right now we can only speculate. I would like to see the autopsy results. I'm willing to bet this entire incident took place in 7 feet or less and thats pretty damn close. I need more information.

[leesa]

59. Bullshit...they took him to first class. talked with him ...didn't take

away his bag...get off your Rambo kick.

[Historic NY]

60. deleted

[LostinVA]

68. I do agree with you on this

It seems the situation was under control already/.... *sigh*

[Nashyra]

24. Were you there?

How can any of us know what kind of shot they had. Let's believe everyone before the agents have had a chance to weigh in, OH THAT"S RIGHT THEY CAN'T, they are on administration leave which is normal but they can not stick up for their actions in public

If you do not know anything about the airline industry security then why do you think you should have an opinion, because the media that we all believe in other matter's keep parading anyone who wants to be on TV? What's with quoting or repeating what we hear on MSM, or is it because the Whitehouse happens to believe the agents did the right thing even though they are responsible for the fear mentality. Air Marshalls have had guns on the aircraft for years, way before 9-11

Put the blame where it belongs, before 9-11 when the * administration had a chance to ramp up security for the airlines and perhaps able to avoid 9-11 they did NOTHING, now these people who are put in the position of protecting ALL the passengers, not just determining which ones are mentally stable or not would not be so quick to pull a trigger. They are trained to do just what they did, and they shoot to incapacitate, if the person fleeing happens to be killed that is also a tragic event for the person who had to try and stop them. They need to aim for the largest mass possible so that bullets won't hit bystanders.

What would everyone be saying if he did have a bomb and they did not stop him. They were in a no win situation and I for one are Damn glad they are on board.

[jbnow]

56. We don't know

but it's OK if people wonder about conflicting report on the word bomb.

I know some are jumping to blame, but death is a distressing outcome especially if all he was doing was running off the plane.

I guess we can't be certain of what screeners get, which would be why they'd think he could have a bomb in his bag, since it should have been checked already.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

75. Skip the "what if" crap....let's stick with what REALLY happened, okay?

[Zodiak]

121. I think it is generally agreed that

"what if" games are out of bounds.

"What if Iraq has a nuclear weapon?" see...?

[0007]

118. Another smell will take its place

It will be flushed in two days. Repeat; All turds look the same!

[AlCzervik]

14. funny you should mention taser, today i read in my local paper

that yet another young man died from being tasered, this is the 6th case in sacramento since June, wtf?

[shanti]

41. hey, i'm in sac too

missed the story, since i don't read the bee. taser deaths is one of my "issues", along with PNAC. when did this happen?

[AlCzervik]

53. it was yesterday in Sonoma, 31 year old male

here is the link for the SF chron. This is like number 6 sionce June i'm almost sure.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/07/MNGU2G4FR410.DTL

[merwin]

5. The truth will come out in a month or so... until then I'm not taking

sides on this one.

[rodeodance]

16. I agree. The dripping has started.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

7. Don't they like carry a second bomb in their socks so they can

ya know, plant it on the unfortunates who get in their crosshairs?? I mean, shouldn't they? Kidding of course.

[Spazito]

8. Thanks for posting this! It is the first concrete article with an

independent witness coming forward with regard to the shouting and bomb issue. It certainly confirms to me there is something fishy about the 'official' story.

[rodeodance]

17. yes, something fishy.

[methinks2]

11. thanks for the link

Amazing! So this guy had a panic attack and he was shot dead? What type of yahoo's are we hiring as air marshals? Geez! (In Orlando nowdays the cops just taze you 20 times instead of shoot you.)

[Double T]

15. The sky marshals overreacted and NOW the cover-up for the mistake......

begins. They are desperately looking for anyone who heard the word 'bomb' and no one will be found. Time will prove the overreaction to be true. Then what??????

[demo dutch]

23. Exactly!!!

[rinsd]

30. Wouldn't asking that question be elementary?

Seriously, if the report was that he used the word bomb" wouldn't you ask eyewitnesses if they heard it?

[PassingFair]

36. Something tells me they'll "find" someone...

"Let's roll"!

[Bonhomme Richard]

18. If looked at logically...................

if you are a US Marshall on a plane and a guy starts running around obviously agitated stating he had a bomb then logically he would set it off. Not run around until chased off the plane by the Marshall's, run across the tarmac and then set off the bomb by himself. Not to mention a lady is running around claiming the guy isn't right in the head.
In my opinion they were stressed and overreacted, but then again, I wasn't there so it is all moot.

[AlCzervik]

20. but if he never said he had a bomb he should have been treated the way

other unruly passengers are, he should have been restrained and arrested on the ground. Eventually it will all come out, i don't if he said or not.

[LostinVA]

70. But, witnesses are saying none of that happened

[Little Star]

19. England all over again.

On AC360 last night the officials who were guests were already backing off the claim that he said hew had a bomb.

[Larissa238]

21. Interesting...

"I never heard the word 'bomb' on the plane," McAlhany told TIME in a telephone interview. "I never heard the word bomb until the FBI asked me did you hear the word bomb. That is ridiculous." Even the authorities didn't come out and say bomb, McAlhany says. "They asked, 'Did you hear anything about the b-word?'" he says. "That's what they called it."

There have been psychiatric tests done about subliminal implanting. If you ask someone after something happened did they hear "word", there is a much larger chance that word will be subliminally implanted in their head, and then they might "remember" it. Slight brainwashing technique

I find it interesting that they said that. Couldn't they have just asked "what did you hear the man say?" instead of putting the word "bomb" into there? I know it seems standard... but I just found it interesting, that's all.

[stray cat]

22. I never heard the word bomb used by the passenger either

Of course I was in New York at the time and so it is possible I was too far way to make the words out clearly. I've heard alot of witnesses who were able to hear as much as I did and everyone seems to listen to them so I might as well get involved.

The witness may have been close enough to hear what was said throughout the exchange but its also possible he was as able to hear as I was.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blitzen]

27. Lead story on CNN.com: "Passengers raise questions..."

"As investigators try to piece together the final moments before two air marshals shot and killed an American Airlines passenger, questions are arising about whether he made a bomb threat. Air marshals said Rigoberto Alpizar announced he was carrying a bomb before being killed but so far no passenger has publicly concurred with that account. Passengers also say Alpizar's wife pursued him off the plane, saying he was mentally ill, just before he was killed."

[raggedcompany]

46. Well, that was the lead for about ten minutes.

"White House backs Marshalls" replaced it very quickly.

[jayfish]

114. Has That Story Been Scrubbed?

I need it for a radio show I'm about to call and it just doesn't exist at CNN. However, as raggedcompany said, " White House backs air marshals' actions" is available. Do you have a link for the story?

Jay

[blitzen]

116. It was the lead story on the main CNN webpage yesterday...

for a few hours. I'm not internet-savvy enough to know how to retrieve these things after they're scrubbed. I think some of the local papers in Florida are covering the passengers' comments.

[jayfish]

120. Scubbed...

in the context of how I used it means it was totally removed from the site and tossed down the memory-hole. Another method of scrubbing is to edit the story without any notification to readers. After I read the "White House backs air marshals' actions" story it looks as though they included the sentiment of the scrubbed story. I don't like the way "news" web-sites do this. They should be required to archive all versions of all stories and make those archives available for reading. We had a real scrubbing bonanza going on in the run-up to war. It's too bad the old DU sites' data based isn't available for searching and reading. I'd post some links.

Jay

[IndianaGreen]

28. The skymarshalls are US contractors, not US Marshalls

These rent-a-cops lied, just as the Brits lied when they shot that Brazilian in the tube a few months ago.

[Little Star]

31. Say what?

What a world. Rent a cops with guns on airplanes? I sure feel safe now.

[Pavulon]

32. This is Wrong

Both the Federal Agents had backgrounds from other agencies. Customs and Border patrol. They are Federal law enforcement agents, not contractors.

[Catt03]

51. A baggage inspector is not assuring as a federal marshall

as one of the agents on the plane was previous to becoming a "sky marshall

[Turn CO Blue]

37. FAM's are not rent-a-cops. Sorry, but look it up.

[indepat]

29. It the passenger's account has merit, this would seem an execution

[Cults4Bush]

33. having him cornered in first class and letting him get away,

suppopsedly he was such a high threat that they let him keep his sack right by him. Supposedly these guys also train in hand to hand combat, how on earth did this guy get past two FAMs out and through a crowded galley (all galleys are tight) out of the jet and all the way into the jetway?

How come? Doesn't that seem odd at all to anyone? So they let the guy get away and then they shot him because they let someone mentally ill get away.

I feel bad for the FAMs it has to suck killing a innocent man because you let him jump through two of you in a crowded passenger cabin.

[PhilipShore]

39. It does not matter...

even of he said he had a bomb, they had no right to kill him. Reaching inside a backpack is not a reason to kill someone period.

[scarface2004]

40. i said yesterday the sky marshal was itching to kill someone!

he was probably cranked on steroids..need only the slightest provocation, like looking at him cross eyed...

i hear he shot the guy 5 times while he was laying face down bleeding to death.

ho ray for sky marshal dirty harry!!!

[Pavulon]

43. Yep

I'm sure when he has to piss in a cup he will pop for steroids.

People don't react to gunshots in the real world like the movies.

[Pachamama]

42. Our Subway Victim...

Why do I have a sense of Deja Vu here? Although claerly different circumstances (London was on alert after the bombings), why do I have a sense that this shooting emphasizes the cracks and incompetencies in our security system?

I don't know about any other DUers, but this incident makes me feel less safe and more vulnerable...not from Terrorists, but rather from our gov't agencies that are supposedly "keeping us safe".

:scared:

[EFerrari]

44. Me, too. If they could misread this so badly, we are not safe.

Too bad! I was all in favor of the air marshalls program. :(

[AzDar]

45. I read somewhere here on DU earlier today that there was a BOLO

issued for a 'shoe bomber' by the FAA/FBI yesterday or the day before. Maybe this is why the marshals may have been a little nervous and therefore had itchy trigger fingers....

[daleo]

47. That may mitigate a bit, but not justify

Law enforcement needs more than this to justify shooting members of the public, or else we are all in danger.

[AzDar]

54. Fully agree. n/t

[jljamison]

48. common eyewitness variance

isn't it all too common that eyewitnesses to the same event come away with dramatically different accounts of the same event?

I think we ought to cut these guys some slack. And please, their day-to-day execution of their jobs has absolutely zero to do with the Administration.

Seems to me you'd need a whole lot more than one person saying "bomb" was never said. You'd need several, if not a majority, of the onlookers and those in a position to here the overall flow of the whole event as it unfolded from within the airplane up the jetway. Even better, have it on video camera with sound. But just one person saying "oh the guy never said 'bomb'".

[EFerrari]

49. That's right. There were 122 people on that plane.

All of whom seem to have been debriefed for an extended period of time.

(Hmmm. What do I do? Challenge the FBI or keep my mouth shut and go home? Hard choices. . . .)

[High Plains]

57. Well, how about one who actually heard him say "bomb"?

Do we have any accounts of witnesses who heard him say that?

[Don1]

62. Exactly. n/t

[Marie26]

67. No

From a Houston Chronicle article:

But seven passengers interviewed by the Orlando Sentinel — seated in both the front and rear of the main passenger cabin — said Alpizar was silent as he ran past them on his way to the exit.

"I can tell you, he never said a thing in that airplane. He never called out he had a bomb," said Orlando architect Jorge A. Borrelli, who helped comfort Alpizar's wife after the gunfire.

Two teens seated in Row 26 agreed. So did Jorge Figueroa, a power plant operator from Lakeland, Fla., seated a few rows behind first-class.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3513305.html

[Marie26]

66. There's no variance

Not one eyewitness says they heard him talk about a bomb. Based on the "eyewitness variance" you're talking about, you would expect to hear conflicting stories from the witnessess (7 witneses in all). But they are all very consistent - no such threat was uttured.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

74. What "variance"? There's none in this case, is there?

[Indy Lurker]

50. Whack'em & Stack'em

Whack'em & Stack'em is a term Sierra Times came up with a few years back "...to identify the 'always justifiable' law enforcement homicide, or fatal police shooting."



Here's a better description:

http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/aug/23/arws082301.htm




Here's a link to dozens of questionable shootings.

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/whackstack.php


Just remember boys and girls when you are approached by a police officer, keep your hands in plain sight, and don't reach for anything until you are told to do so.

[Maine-ah]

52. I've got a BONG!

well, it sounds like bomb.....:shrug:

[Raine]

55. That is what I have been wondering all along

did anyone besides the marshalls say they heard anything about a bomb. I think the marshalls made that up after killing the guy to cover their butts for being to fast with the trigger.

[leesa]

58. The truth came out about the guy murdered by the British cops...it

didn't matter. I suspect it will be the same here. The government will put out its usual lies...plant innuendoes about 'terrorist', 'he said he had a bomb', 'he ran', and then the retractions will be printed days later on page A23. All will be forgotten...the lawsuit will be settled out of court.

How many times will we need to repeat this nightmare with armed cops and pilots aboard planes?

[soda]

64. was he shot in the back?

or in the front the agents said they felt thier lives were in danger was this passenger coming towards them? i think i´ll quit flying for a while

[Media_Lies_Daily]

73. Does it really matter? The man was bipolar, something his wife was....

...telling the air marshals repeatedly.

Additionally, none of the passengers interviewed to date can recall that the deceased had been running up and down the aisle shouting that he had a bomb.

If you're afraid of bipolar people traveling on airplanes, perhaps you're better off not flying at all.

[soda]

88. my point was

If this guy was shot in the back, as i believe the air marshall was behind him,coming off the plane how could he have been in fear of his life the poor guy was going AWAY from him

[LisaL]

128. Actually, if bipolar people are acting crazy, as this guy was,

they shouldn't be allowed on planes in the first place.

[Marie26]

69. I'm surprised

How many people are defending the air marshall's actions & accepting the story at face value. Yes, we want to be safe while flying; yes, it was very reckless for the man to act that way. But hopefully we're not at the point in this country where odd behavior is punishable by death. If the story was true that he really was shouting about a bomb, and if there was no wife telling them he was bipolar, I could maybe almost see it. But we know now that he had no weapon, his wife said he was mentally ill, and passengers have disputed the marshall's account of his statements. All that's proven at this point is - a passenger ran, and they shot him. Do we really want a Wild West "shoot first" mentality on our airplanes? Maybe we do. If so, how many innocent people are we willing to accept as "mistakes" for a possible terrorist threat?

[adriennui]

63. you don't mess around on planes

period.

[LostinVA]

71. The point is, he DIDN'T mess around, not enough to be killed

It appears he was probably less of a problem OR a threat than these drunks who they have to land a plane for.

[Marie26]

65. I bet he never said it

In the news stories, the federal authorities used words like "a threat presented itself" and "he indicated to them that he posessed a bomb." They "believed it was necessary to shoot" - not that it WAS necessary. How did he "indicate" it to them? If he was shouting this in a crowded airport, why aren't there any independent witnesses? Why do the press releases use weasel words like "indicate"? To a panicked air marshall, someone reaching into a bag could "indicate" they have a weapon, that doesn't mean it's appropriate to shoot them. I think this is a case where the air marshalls overreacted; and then tried to cover it up by hyping the threat this man posed.

[skypilot]

76. Oh boy...

...I was wondering how long it would be before a story like this popped up. I think the whole thing is really sad but I am willing to give the air marshalls the benefit of the doubt until more information is available. However, one thing has been bothering me: it seems that the same woman keeps popping up on the news as a "witness". I can't remember her name but I've seen her at least three times on three different news programs giving her account of what happened. Maybe I haven't seen as much coverage as some others so maybe there have been other passengers coming forward who I haven't seen but I'm always a little wary when the news media seems to rely on ONE person to give an account of something that was witnessed by lots of other people. I know that sounds paranoid but it always gets my antennae up.

[Puglover]

77. Not only does noone recall

him saying "bomb" but he was trying desperately to get off the f***ing airplane. That action seems at odds with trying to bomb the damn thing.

[Exiled in America]

78. Why do we always jump to anti-law enforcement positions?

It seems to me like we on the left always seem to almost immediately jump to anti-law enforcement positions almost before there is any information on the issue at all.

Why?

Personally, I feel that none of the facts are clear right now, and I am basically on the side of law enforcement until its proven that I shouldn't be. They are good people doing a difficult job most of us don't want to do. If it comes out they acted inappropriately, then I'll want to see them held accountable. But I'm not going to mix all of this mess into some kind of anti-law enforcement fiction just so we can act like they are the bad guys by default. I don't get that.

Forget "the left" - that's probalby way too broad. But do you think that's an unfair generalization of DU?

[Warren Stupidity]

79. Gee I can think of two reasons in this case.

1) the fellow didn't have a bomb, and yet he is dead.
2) the officials keep lying to us.

In general I am against acting like a farm animal casually accepting the fact that the farmer is going to take one of us out for slaughter on a regular basis. That really isn't a 'left' or 'right' position.

[Exiled in America]

80. Is it that simple?

The fellow would not comply with instructions. Was he also reaching in for something? If so, you shoot him. You don't wait to get shot or blown up.

As far as lying goes, that always happens.

What I am for, sir, is not crucifying the very people who protect the rest of us "farm animals" from predators on a daily basis. I will wait for more information to come out before I start jumping to conclusions.

[Warren Stupidity]

81. I guess you are just not keeping up with developments.

Death for not complying with instructions? That is acceptable to you?

The news is now full of eyewitness passenger reports that the man was not saying anything about a bomb. It seems that the air marshals had him detained in the front of the plane, with his bag, when he got up and ran for the jetway. Somehow, he had a bomb in that bag, rings a bit hollow. The official story, which just yesterday had him running down the aisle screaming about a bomb is now split into: he said he had a bomb while he was out in the jetway where nobody else could hear him; and he reached into his bag in a suspicious manner.

Once again we have lying officials and harmless dead people and I want to know why. It is not crucifying 'the very people who protect us' to demand the truth, to demand that if they made a mistake that they have the integrety to admit their mistake, to apologize to family of the victim, and that they immediately start a review of their policies and procedures to make sure that another mistake isn't going to happen.

Or we can just accept that every now and then one of us will be selected for slaughter, and that somehow this will make us safe.

[Exiled in America]

82. That might be true, though I'm trying to keep up

Define "full of" eye witness reports. I am aware of one.

I agree with your second paragraph. Your last sentence, however, is not what I am suggesting and you know it. I just don't like it when it feels like we've formulated our conclusions before we've ever even clarified the actual events or the evidence.

[Warren Stupidity]

84. Ok.

So here is the pattern of these discussions.

1) a horrible incident with a pat explanation occurs.

2) various folks here take sides, some rush to accept the pat explanation, others call bullshit, and the middle say 'we've seen this before, hold off'.

3) within a day or so the initial official story (the pat explanation) falls apart.

4) the camps on either end pretty much hold fast, the accepters invent new reasons to believe the bullshit, the doubters give no quarter, mercilessly pressing their advantage. The middle pretty much crumbles, although some of the former accepters, so quick to take the pat explanation, have done a strategic retreat to 'we need to wait for more information' and are now occupying the middle.

We don't need to wait for more information. As soon as the pat explanation fell apart we had clear evidence of an official coverup in progress. There will not be a lot of additional information. The initial story is the one that has been tatooed on the brains of 90% of the population. Only the very few will poke around the insides of newspapers and the tinfoil sites on the internet to learn where this all ends up. The follow up will go right down the memory hole. We've seen it all before.

My concern is that DUers don't buy into the initial bullshit. My concern is how to get at the 90% of the population that has been successfully brainwashed: how to combat the gestalt experience that the media in collusion with the state uses so effectively to befuddle us.

[RedOnce]

122. Great post! Well said.

[LostinVA]

87. There have been at least seven, reported in the Orlando Sentinel

today. I'm sure will dribble out, with some passengers foreign nationals and thus not interviewed by our media.

Not automatically believing what the Establishment says and being anti-law enforcement are two different things. I dated a cop for several years, and know how insidious the thin blue line can be. They cover each other;s asses,e ven when they shouldn't.

[Deus Irae]

115. to Mr. "Exiled in America":

Regarding your remark:

<<
"The fellow would not comply with instructions. Was he also reaching in for something? If so, you shoot him. You don't wait to get shot or blown up.

As far as lying goes, that always happens.

What I am for, sir, is not crucifying the very people who protect the rest of us "farm animals" from predators on a daily basis. I will wait for more information to come out before I start jumping to conclusions.">>

Sir, you have jumped to conclusions. "The fellow would not comply with instructions". That's a conclusion, and it's trivially obvious to anyone who can think their way out of a paper bag. Excuse me for being so Chomsky-like. ;) I am sorry you are so frightened of getting shot or blown up. That's sad. I hope you can work through the fear.

There are two sides to this story: the side presented by officials representing the two air marshals, and that of eye witnesses giving first hand accounts which contradict the hearsay. I'm not jumping to any conclusions, but I know which way I'm leaning.

[recoveringrepublican]

117. Well as an extremely hard of hearing person, your logic is to kill me

because I can't freaking hear. I can't hear instructions, and to be honest people might think I "act strange" since for the most part I have to rely on other things to "hear" and understand what is going on. I guess it's worth my life so you can feel a fake sense of security and cops and air marshalls can feel like fucking heroes.

[Deus Irae]

113. I can't believe you have a picture of Chomsky

as your icon, and that you would say this:

<<
" It seems to me like we on the left always seem to almost immediately jump to anti-law enforcement positions almost before there is any information on the issue at all.

Why?

Personally, I feel that none of the facts are clear right now, and I am basically on the side of law enforcement until its proven that I shouldn't be. They are good people doing a difficult job most of us don't want to do. If it comes out they acted inappropriately, then I'll want to see them held accountable. But I'm not going to mix all of this mess into some kind of anti-law enforcement fiction just so we can act like they are the bad guys by default. I don't get that. ">>

Well, one thing is trivially obvious: Noam would first side with the innocent victim who was murdered, rather than the law enforcement official who shot him. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but if I may suggest, if you want to have a picture of a human being as your icon, choose one whose beliefs are more in line with your own. I could offer some suggestions, if you like, based solely on the fact that you would first give the benefit of doubt to a gun toting law enforcement official. You're right, this has nothing to do with "the left".

[personman]

130. Because...

the burden of justification is on authority. That is a Chomsky quote btw.
Also, if you are giving the air marshalls the benefit of the doubt, then you are denying that to the victim/perp. Since, as you said, we have no information, that seems premature as well to me.

[IndianaGreen]

132. The Bush regime hasn't told the truth in 5 years, yet...

there are people that still accept their version of events without question.

It is sad the way Americans accept any official version at face value! It is as if people were fearful that their entire universe would collapse were they allow doubt to seep into their consciousness.

[cosmicdot]

85. wonder if FL's 'shoot first' law will be invoked?

... went into effect October 1

one only needs to sense 'a threat' in a publc place, and fire away ... immunity guraranteed

[goodhue]

89. Witnesses heard no talk of bomb: Some passengers dispute the account

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-planefolo0905dec09,0,3421926.story?coll=orl-home-headlines

Orlando Sentinel

Witnesses heard no talk of bomb

Some passengers dispute the account of a Maitland man's airport shooting.

Mark Schlueb

Sentinel Staff Writer

December 9, 2005

Rigoberto Alpizar may have just been scared.

As more details emerged about Wednesday's anxious moments aboard American Airlines Flight 924, it became increasingly apparent that the Maitland man killed by federal air marshals may have been fleeing in panic as he suffered the symptoms of bipolar disorder.

To grieving relatives, two air marshals acted rashly and an innocent man died -- one whom at least seven passengers said they never heard say anything about a bomb.

"With all the advances that the U.S. has supposedly made in their war against terrorism, I can't conceive that the marshals wouldn't be able to overpower an unarmed, single man, especially knowing he had already cleared every security check," Carlos Alpizar said Thursday of his brother's death, in a telephone interview from Costa Rica.

"I will never accept that it was necessary to kill him as if he was some dangerous criminal. And I want to make this distinction: He did not die. He was killed."

* * *

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-planefolo0905dec09,0,4125653,print.story?coll=orl-home-headlines

[VegasWolf]

90. The truth will come out! nt

[MnFats]

91. OK, now i must apologize...

...I, in posts here last night, swallowed the 'i have a bomb' bit hook line and sinker.
....i should have known better and to wait a while before jumping in without all facts.
.....I have brought shame upon my ancestors.

[acmejack]

92. It's OK, we will waive the requirement for ritual suicide!

This time...

[DoYouEverWonder]

97. No you haven't

You would only dishoner them if you did not recognize or denied your mistake.

[Bluerthanblue]

101. you are a bright

ray of sunshine -

and i respect you for having the courage and humility to admit you aren't perfect-
which makes you one step closer to perfect in my thinking-

Thanks for your honesty- you've brought honor to yourself- and credibility.

[Bonescrat]

107. So you're saying you're not a republican...? nt

[eridani]

111. Thus proving that we aren't just the flip side of Freeperville

I seriously doubt anybody over there would admit to ever misjudging anything.

[Stand and Fight]

93. Well, the story continues to come out...

If what these witnesses are saying is correct, Alpizar should NOT have been killed. I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong if that is in fact the case. Hopefully all of those who were so sure about their positions on here will be forthcoming, because, frankly, there were a lot of rude and snide comments said against those who espoused the opinion that his shooting was NOT necessary. Specifically by those who were extraordinarily vocal about the "necessity" to kill the man – especially those who talked down to people who were critical of the actions of the federal air marshals actions.

[LostinVA]

98. Yup, just like during the London Underground shooting

Before all of the total lies came out, those of us who questioned and/or criticized the shooting were given some damned hard guff. After the truth -- which many of us suspected -- came out, the majority of them never showed their face again. It is bemusing to me to have people on DU swallow the Establishment's line hook, line, and sinker... without ANY concrete proof.

[Rich Hunt]

100. oh boo hoo

The story was reported in the mainstream media exactly as you people would have liked it - complete with confusing descriptions of the man's alleged 'mental illness'.

Who is 'the establishment'? If you're so put upon, how come you got your story into YOUR mainstream media?

[Stand and Fight]

103. Could you please clarify your statements.

The story was reported in the mainstream media exactly as you people would have liked it - complete with confusing descriptions of the man's alleged 'mental illness'.

Who is 'the establishment'? If you're so put upon, how come you got your story into YOUR mainstream media?

What do you mean it was reported exactly as "you people would have liked it"?

Why are you so driven to be rude and belittling to those who simply disagree with your perception? Furthermore, why do you find it necessary to attack them with such vitriol in your tone?

Why is the issue about "your story into YOUR mainstream media" so much more important to you than revealing the truth? Rather that "truth" is that the man said he had a bomb or rather he never said such is not clear at this point.

Why do you seem "so put upon," and find it necessary to be snide and rude?

[Stand and Fight]

104. And that same thing will continue...

I am convinced that there are some people on this board who don't give a damn about having constructive discussion. They just want to stir up ill feelings and cause problems. They do this -- not because they're FReepers or Republicans -- but because they're just angry little people and they feel empowered behind their keyboards. Then there are those who hate any opinion contrary to their own and will bicker without any application of reason or civility. DU is for the most part a great place, but lately some of the people on here seem to go to extraordinary lengths to piss all over everyone else -- to hell with treating each other with respect and courtesy. I fail to understand why some appear so threatened because there are those who will question anything that comes before them before they establish an opinion -- especially in light of the last five years and the fear that so controls this country now. Roosevelt was so right. The rudeness and close-minded behavior we've seen on here is indicative of what living in a fear driven society will do. How sad...

[Zodiak]

123. and a great reason to use the "ignore" button

The people whom you describe can make life here unpleasant, but not after the "ignore" button is hit.

[fed-up]

94. The SF Chron has FLEOA saying he was "screaming" he would blow up plane

I say bullsh*t

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/12/09/national/a071112S62.DTL
Passengers: Alpizar Didn't Say 'Bomb'

...One passenger said he "absolutely never heard the word 'bomb' at all" during the uproar as the Orlando-bound flight prepared to leave Miami on Wednesday.

Federal officials say Rigoberto Alpizar made the threat in the jetway, after running up the plane's aisle from his seat at the back of the jetliner. They opened fire because the 44-year-old Home Depot employee ignored their orders to stop, reached into his backpack and said he had a bomb, according to authorities....

...Shooting to maim or injure — rather than kill — is not an option for federal agents, said John Amat, national operations vice president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, which includes air marshals in its membership.

"The person was screaming, saying he would blow up the plane, reaching into his bag — they had to react," Amat said.


...

so just when are they going to identify the "multiple" witnesses in the Orlando paper

"A Miami-Dade police spokeswoman said Thursday that multiple witnesses reported that the 44-year-old was yelling that he had a bomb as he made his way down the aisle with a backpack slung across his chest. Later, the agency's chief of investigations insisted that Alpizar was yelling about a bomb but declined to say whether he was on the plane at the time."

[goodhue]

95. More witness detail in this AP story . . .

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3514066.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3514066.html

Dec. 9, 2005, 9:46AM
Passengers: Traveler was agitated before boarding

By CURT ANDERSON
Associated Press

MIAMI — The airline passenger shot to death by federal marshals who said he made a bomb threat was agitated even before boarding and later appeared to be desperate to get off the plane, some fellow travelers said.

One passenger said he "absolutely never heard the word 'bomb' at all" during the uproar as the Orlando-bound flight prepared to leave Miami on Wednesday.

* * *

McAlhany, a 44-year-old construction worker who was returning home from a fishing trip in Key West, said he was sitting in Seat 21C when he noticed a commotion a few rows back.

"I heard him saying to his wife, 'I've got to get off the plane,'" McAlhany said. "He bumped me, bumped a couple of stewardesses. He just wanted to get off the plane."

Alpizar ran up the aisle into the first-class cabin, where marshals chased him onto the jetway, McAlhany said.

McAlhany said he "absolutely never heard the word 'bomb' at all."

"The first time I heard the word 'bomb' was when I was interviewed by the FBI," McAlhany said. "They kept asking if I heard him say the B-word. And I said, 'What is the B-word?' And they were like, 'Bomb.' I said no. They said, 'Are you sure?' And I am."

* * *

"This was wrong," McAlhany said. "This man should be with his family for Christmas. Now he's dead."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3514066.html

[goodhue]

129. Some background on my wife . . .

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3514066.html

Buechner works for the Council on Quality and Leadership based in Towson, Md., a nonprofit organization focused on improving life for people with disabilities and mental illness, the organization said in a statement.

[soothsayer]

96. Told ya so!

[Bandit]

99. My local paper said he feared there was a bomb on board

and ran fleeing for his life. He never said he had a bomb only that there was a bomb onboard. He was running away from the plane. If he had a bomb why would he run? He was gunna blow everyone up including himself so why run?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

102. Good point!

He may have imagined that their was a bomb on the plane and been trying to get away from it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

112. Whoa I never thought of that

but it makes sense.

[goodhue]

105. Another witness story . . .

http://www.wftv.com/news/5503137/detail.html

Local Man Tells Different Story About Shooting At Miami Airport

POSTED: 4:13 pm EST December 9, 2005

WINTER PARK, Fla. -- A Central Florida man is trying to set the record straight. He said that Rigoberto Alpizar never shouted that he had a bomb. In fact, he said, he didn't say anything. The local traveler heard and saw the whole thing unfold and doesn't like how it's been depicted.

"I saw the air marshal with his gun, in the doorway, halfway in the plane, halfway out and he kept scanning the plane as well," Jorge Borelli said.

He had a great view of the air marshal on the aisle, nine rows back.

"He appeared very agitated and very nervous. He was obviously one of the air marshal's that shot the gentleman," Borelli said.

* * *

http://www.wftv.com/news/5503137/detail.html

[goodhue]

106. .

"If someone would've said there's a bomb on the plane, I think people would've run. I think people would've jumped up and reacted," he said.

[suffragette]

108. Isn't that the truth

People would have been jumping over the seats to get out if they heard that.
The eyewitness accounts seem much more credible than the ever-shifting "official" story.

K&R

[screembloodymurder]

109. You can't trust anything on the news.

The whole fucking lot of these Dick and Jane reporters will say whatever they're told to say. Folks it's everyman for themselves and our Homeland Security Dept. is pushing a flue pandemic. They remind me of carnival barkers. I think there is going to be a deliberate attempt at population control. They put something in the flue vaccine that makes one vulnerable to a specific virus, then they'll introduce that virus and kill off the 20% of SS recipients that got the shot.

[brentspeak]

110. It sounds like he was having a panic attack

Maybe not even something related to his bipolar illness. Fear of flying. Probably was hyperventilating, thinking he was going to die unless he got off the plane.

This whole "he was threatening to blow up the plane" thing is beginning to sound like complete bunk.

[stlsaxman]

119. From what I understand that very plane flew into that airport and EVERYONE

went through U.S. Customs, Including the victim. Why didn't he have a panic attack on the plane from South America? If customs cleared the passengers and luggage before re-boarding, any bomb would/should have been found.

Personally, the perspective that the guy was delusional for lack of medication makes the most sense.

How very, very tragic.

[twaddler01]

124. I have a question,

WHY couldn't they stun him or shoot him in the leg? Why kill him? :eyes:

[goodhue]

125. Taser exec has the same question . . .

http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=4226409

Taser exec asks why air marshals don't have non-lethal choices

PHOENIX

Following a fatal passenger shooting at Miami International Airport, stun gun maker Taser International is questioning why federal air marshals aren't given less-lethal weapons like Tasers.

But air marshals say Tasers are not an appropriate option to deal with potential terrorists.

http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=4226409

[LisaL]

127. They don't have stun guns. As for shooting someone in the leg,

nothing would be more stupid if the person actually does have a bomb.
Being shot in the leg won't stop someone from detonating an explosive.

[Radioactive]

126. Fox News are having an "entertaining debate" about this incident!

There having a good laugh about the terror laws because of this current incident, the presenter has been grinning through the entire debate. It actually makes me feel physically sick. What kind of people does this station employ?!?!?