Time story casts doubt on official version of Plane shooting

[mattclearing]

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

"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."

"I was on the phone with my brother. Somebody came down the aisle and put a shotgun to the back of my head and said put your hands on the seat in front of you. I got my cell phone karate chopped out of my hand. Then I realized it was an official."

In the ensuing events, many of the passengers began crying in fear, he recalls. "They were pointing the guns directly at us instead of pointing them to the ground," he says "One little girl was crying. There was a lady crying all the way to the hotel."

Doesn't sound so cut and dried, now does it?

[NVMojo]

1. Amerika, trigger happy agents threaten lives of citizens.

Shoot to kill anyone!

[seabeyond]

6. kinda how we treat iraqi innocents, and hey katrina victims.

anyone see a pattern yet

[NVMojo]

20. yep, it's the sign of an impending POLICE STATE!!!

brought to you by the neocons running this nation.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

40. "Impending"?? The police state arrived on December 13, 2001.

[burythehatchet]

2. Lets see how many law and order liberals step forward

and reassess their comments...waiting...waiting...waiting

[mattclearing]

7. Seriously. I'll do my part.

When the story said he claimed to have a bomb, I thought it was the only logical course of action for someone in that position to shoot to kill.

But if he didn't say it (and the media went out of its way to imply he did), then we are all being sold a bill of goods to cover for some trigger-happy jackboot shit.

[Kingshakabobo]

21. It's starting to sound like London.

The media helped with that hysteria and the police did nothing to correct the record until they were caught lying.


I've been withholding any judgment but the whole thing smelled a little fishy from the get-go. It seemed that only officials were using "the B word".

Maybe the cops should have been carrying a "throw-down gun."

edit:spelling

[burythehatchet]

26. This is what I've been screaming for my last 50 posts.

and getting trashed for the effort.

[RagingInMiami]

32. Me too

[malaise]

87. All is not lost

this is the concern of many rational people. By the way CNN is carefully saying that no passengers to date heard the word bomb.

[Marie26]

106. Why would that surprise you? nt

[aquart]

8. Here I am. Keep waiting.

I do want a complete and full investigation. And I really want to know why that man was on that plane. With a woman who knew he was mentally ill.

[mattclearing]

9. Mentally ill people fly every day.

And so do physically ill people. The physically ill people are usually more dangerous.

I've never been hurt by someone who was acting strangely on a plane, but I've gotten sick from contagious people on planes several times, and so have a lot of other people.

[aquart]

91. Schizophrenics off their meds get on planes daily?

Got statistics on that one?

If anyone ill, for any reason, gets on a plane, the staff should be informed. And, personally, I completely agree that nobody with a contagious condition should be in a place where the air is recycled.

The safety of the ill person is clearly at stake, but so is the health and safety of others.

Because they kept the dirty family secret to themselves, a sick man is dead.

[EFerrari]

124. Only a tiny fraction of mentally ill people ever hurt

anyone besides themselves or their family members.

On the other hand, mentally ill people are 5X more likely to be the victims of a violent crime.

per NAMI.

[MadHound]

Because they are US citizens, and wanted to exercise their right

To travel freely. Just because you are mentally ill doesn't mean that you give up your right to drive, fly, ride a bike, etc., unless a judge so orders it. Sorry, being mentally ill does NOT make you a second class citizen.

[mattclearing]

Thank you.

That was a bizarre statement. Mentally ill people are everywhere, and most are totally functional individuals.

[MadHound]

25. No, thank you

I grew up with a bi-polar father, who refused to take meds or receive treatment of any kind until long after I was out of the house. It was utter, absolute hell, but he was funtional and non-violent enough that we couldn't commit him against his will. He functioned pretty well, all things considered, worked, traveled, socialized, I think that his one serious problem was in dealing with his family. But as much hell as it was for me, I would never want to have his life restricted as some folks imply around here, nor have him gunned down for acting out.

And yes, it was a bizarre statement. I suppose some people simply can't relate until the problem becomes personal to them.

[aquart]

93. HE WAS OFF HIS MEDS.

And, me, I don't want to be on a plane with an out of control mental patient.

You do?

[MadHound]

100. Hey, everytime you get on a plane, you're probably flying

With somebody off their meds, or on the wrong meds, or who needs meds, etc. Diabetics running low on insulin, hyperglycemics in need of sugar, epileptics in need of a stronger dose of pheno, hell, even smokers who haven't had a cig in a few hours. All of these conditions and more can lead to somebody acting out. Hell, many people simply have a temper and then you add alcohol. And you know what, they all fly, in their hundreds of thousands, every day. And they have every right to. They are US citizens.

What is the solution, require that every passenger submit to a pre-flight mental screening? Still wouldn't stop a damn thing. Drug up every single passenger, ooo you are really asking for the police state. Deny travel to certain people with certain conditions, yeah, that's the ticket, make certain folks second class citizens, how Jim Crow of you:eyes: Oh, and are you going to ban the mentally retarded/developmentally disabled too, after all, when they get mad and frustrated, they too can act out just like the fellow in Miami did. Yeah, that's the ticket, let's start shooting anybody who acts out, shoot first, ask questions later, and then CYA like mad:eyes:

And quite frankly I wouldn't have a problem with flying with anyone of these people. I've worked with them, lived with them, and unlike these trigger happy air marshalls, I can recognize the difference between a person with a mental problem and somebody who is an actual threat, and I can deal with them appropriately.

I find it despicable that there are so many people out there who are ready and willing to throw away the civil rights of a whole group of people simply because they've bought into the whole fear mongering schtick we've had in the past four years. Pa-fucking-thetic. It used to be that we could deal with incidents like this one without killing people. What happened, 911? Gee, way to buy right into that whole fearmongering scheme that Bushco trotted out. Do you hide in your basement everytime the threat colors change?

[Marie26]

107. Well, me

I don't want to be on a plane with an armed, trigger-happy air marshall. We can't always get what we want. I think you have a sort of horror movie view of mental illness. Someone can be mentally ill w/o necessarily being a chainsaw maniac. Many function well in society, have jobs, have families, etc. Are you seriously suggesting we should prevent any mentally ill person from flying?

[Fovea]

108. For 5 years

when I worked in an ER, being the big, strong man and martial arts champ on shift, imagine whose job it was to restrain violently psychotic patients.

The main trick is not minding that you are going to be hit, bitten, and scratched.

Getting my eardrum busted, that bothered me.

[EFerrari]

127. How "out of control" was he? He was trying to GET OFF

the plane! He wasn't slashing other passengers. Geebuz.

[burythehatchet]

23. For the second time in the past 24 hours I've logged off

and removed someone from my Ignorant list to respond. Neither time has it been worth the effort. I should trust my judgment and not second guess myself by thinking Ignored may have something useful to say. Don't respond because I'm closing the door to the cellar.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

54. Oh, brother. Is there now a mental competency test to determine....

...if someone's capable of flying? Or do you think there should be a disclosure form for people wanting to fly that asks them to list any psychiatrists they may be seeing, and for what conditions they're being treated?

[RagingInMiami]

63. Don't speak too soon

That could be added in the revised version of the patriot act.

[burythehatchet]

72. please don't give 'em any ideas.

[BronxBoy]

97. Hey.......

Now that you mention it, we should apply that standard to people who want to be President of the United States!

Surely if we are going to need to determine the mental capacity of people who want to fly, we should do the same for someone who can deploy the world's largest military at a moment's notice complete with nukes.

But it's only the ordinary citizen with a mental issue who is a threat to us all. :sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

128. Mentally ill people are 5x more likely to be victims

of violent crimes than other people are.

Why do we seem to have this exactly backwards?

[LostinVA]

73. Why do you think mentally ill people can't fly?

And what is it with all the anti-mentally ill posts the last two days?

[woo me with science]

90. for some reason that post title just struck me funny.

"Why do you think mentally ill people can't fly?"

ha ha ha ha ha ha

I like it.

[Marie26]

109. Not to mention the fact

That the most dangerous people on flights are the ones who drink too much alcohol. I remember reading that flight attendents had a campaign to ban alcohol on flights because so many passengers became belligerant, aggressive, & angry after drinking too much. But I guess we want to have our beers on-flight, so that's OK.

"Flight Attendants Fight `Air Rage' - They say alcohol is biggest reason passengers become abusive."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/07/07/MN99774.DTL

[DS1]

13. They put the rest of the flight in full lockdown

Unless of course you'd rather they just assumed that since they put down one guy, nobody else on the flight was dangerous. Terrorists never work in teams. Nope.

[burythehatchet]

17. I have nary a clue of what you speak

nor do I seek clarification. This issue has left me very bitter.

[DS1]

22. So, you stick your tongue out in a snide snipe to some people

then when you get the response you so eloquently begged for, you claim ignorance.

Figures.

[burythehatchet]

24. see post 17

[Media_Lies_Daily]

47. Are you stating that there was a "terrorist" on that flight?

[DS1]

51. I'm stating there could have been

[Media_Lies_Daily]

55. Ohhhh....there COULD have been! Well, then, there may be....

...there MAY be "terrorists" on EVERY flight....do you recommend that every passenger plane be subjected to a SWAT team inspection?

How about having loaded weapons pointed in your direction, and in the direction of your children?

[burythehatchet]

56. This is getting scary.

I put myself in a position where if I was on this plane, I too would be dead. If anyone pointed a gun or threatened my son I wouldn't stand for it regardless of the circumstances and especially in the circumstances as we understand them today. For this I would certainly have been shot. Its really time to leave.

[Marie26]

111. Why are so many "liberals" defending it?

I thought we were the ones that were supposed to stand up for the weak, or powerless, or individual freedoms. Yet so many are defending killing a man based on nothing more than suspicion. Civil rights, Constitution - who needs it? This is exactly what the Bush Administration does - scare us w/"terrorist threats" enough to give up our freedoms & rights. Once we can see ourselves in that scary position, we're more than willing to ignore the legal violations in this case - as long as we think they'll keep us safe. It's the Patriot Act in miniature.

[DS1]

61. After one guy gets shot dead, you're fucking right I do

Bombers certainly aren't worried about dying for their missions, who's to say he wasn't a probe to fish out the Marshalls, leaving them open to being shot in the back after exposing themselves?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

62. Wow. Just incredible. Don't you think his backpack was checked....

...before he boarded the plane in Miami? Don't you think ha and his wife were carefully screened before getting on that plane?

Come on, you can do better then that.

[aquart]

94. Seen any news reports of what gets past our scanners?

Fascinating.

And there's always something new and clever like plastic guns which outstrips the current detection equipment.

I'm sorry. Those security checks made you feel secure?

[Marie26]

112. Except that he wasn't.

We know that now. Even in your scenario, that doesn't justify shooting him - although I guess it would justify shooting other people who acted "suspiciously" behind the Marshalls. Whose to say his wife wasn't a plant - perhaps they should have shot her as well? When did it become OK to take a human life based on hypothetical "could have been" scenarios?

[High Plains]

95. Yeah, there could have been WMDs in Iraq, too.

[Marie26]

110. There always "could be" a terrorist on a flight

Can they point a gun at any passengers then?

[endarkenment]

31. they won't.

We saw this the last time. They will keep mindlessly repeating that 'he said he had a bomb' and 'but what if he did have a bomb' and slink bank into their warm comfort zone where the nanny state is keeping them safe from the bad terrsts.

[Nordmadr]

103. I was one supporting the actions of the officers

but I did caveat it with "if" the story as originally reported was true. If that changes, then my assesment may as well. However, I would like to point out that additional police force coming into the situation have a security issue to control which has an ultimate purpose of protecting people. That isn't always a pleasant experience while you are going thorugh it. IF facts come to light that indicate there was no bomb threat, then I believe somebody has some serious explaining to do. Lawsuit.

Olafr

P.S. I think more info needs to be collected before making final judgements, eith that said, you can bet your ass if someone said bomb on a fucking plane in anything louder than a speaking voice, somebody would hear it. If it was yelled, virtually everyone would hear it.

Olafr

[acmavm]

3. Never for one minute thought it was cut and dried. Waited to hear the

passenger's side of the story.

As far as our crack air martials go, I don't have any faith in that system whatsoever.

[aquart]

4. No, it doesn't.

Many people might have been hurt. Many people were put in fear. Why?

Because a wife decided it was okay to travel with a man "off his meds"?

[Thorandmjolnir]

16. exactly who was put in danger by this mans actions?

What are you talking about. Who was in any danger because of this mans actions. Did you read the article? Apparently all the man wanted was to get of the plane.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

35. Right. Let's blame the wife of the victim. Real nice.

[aquart]

92. I damn well do.

She was the sane one? She was familiar with his behavior? She kept it to herself?

Damn straight I blame her. For negligence at best. Possibly for much worse.

[Marie26]

113. Who placed them in fear?

Nobody was hurt or put in fear by the man's actions. Passengers have said that he simply ran, and many assumed he'd got on the wrong flight. People were only hurt & placed in fear once the marshalls overreacted, drew guns & became pointing them at passengers & ultimatly shooting a man. They could have dealt with the situation in a better way - it is the marshall's actions that created the harm & fear to other passengers, why don't they share some of the blame?

[Loonman]

5. So the 9/11 attacks were an unqualified success

{B}in Laden could not have hoped for a better outcome in his wildest dreams.

[DS1]

14. Well, he'd probably like a new Kidney

:shrug:

[bigscott]

10. if this is the case

then it is an awful lot like the Brit who was murdered while lying face down on a Tube platform

[mattclearing]

11. Don't step out of line or else. n/t

[Thorandmjolnir]

12. I wish I could find the post

But yesterday, on the original thread about this incident, the first mentioning of a bomb, was from an "unnamed senior official". At the time I was curious as to why that person would be "unnamed". Still no answer to that question.

[mattclearing]

15. Yeah, innuendo rules the day.

Stupid 24-hour news cycle. Who needs facts, so long as you get the story first?

[Marie26]

121. "Unnamed" = "Un-liable"

They were trying to avoid a lawsuit from the first minute this got out.

[MindPilot]

18. "B-word"?! Oh. My. God. That's how I talk to my dogs...

I think that is about the point I would have sarted laughing my ass off. A man is dead, and federal agents use baby-talk. I'd be in jail...or dead.

[Marie26]

114. Well, if they actually said it...

They'd be leading the witness. Eyewitnesses are notoriously suggestible & it would be easy to get agreement. But a good attorney could have that thrown out quick. So they relied on saying "Did he mention the b-word?" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). Like it's any different. I'm actually surprised how consistent the passengers have been. Usually someone has a different version, especially when it is the version they're encouraged to adopt. The fact that they all disagree w/the Marshall's version makes me think that that version must be so far from the reality that it was impossible to agree with.

[Tace]

19. In NYC With Guianni -- Police Were Very Aggressive -- Led To Diallo

It seems that this could be a similar phenomenon.

[BronxBoy]

98. Actually that's a pretty good comparison.....

During Giulani's reign, his so-called tough guy act increased the potential for tragic interactions between civilians and law enforcement. As others have said, it's this public perception that law enforcement should take any aggressive action they deem necessary in order to make us feel protected that's an issue. Because promoters of these types of tactics often paint the world in stark black and white terms, it's very difficult to have to acknowledge gray.

In Giulani's world, it was "The Criminal Element". Today it "Terrorists" But in the end, it's the same old story: well-meaning law enforcement officials are put into situations with a wide variety of civilians with a policy that was probably thought up by someone while they were sitting on a toilet. It's like Tasers. I'm sure that with a proper policy, a Taser is probably an effective and life saving law enforcement tool. But it seems that no one with half a brain has developed and implemented a sane policy concerning it's use. So we have the spectacle of old women and children having their asses fried by Tasers when other tactics would have been effective. And of course, when old women and children are Tasered, the implementers of these asinine procedures have to defend said policies by saying that "This was a dangerous situation and we had to be sure"

While a lot, actually too many people, give Giulani credit for "cleaning up" New York, not many are aware of the price we paid as a society for doing so. So you had Diallo. You also had Dorismond, who became upset when an undercover Narc offered him drugs and he ended up dead because of it. And there was also the case of the mentally ill orthodox Jewish man who was blown away while waving a hammer in Brooklyn even though there was sufficient police prescence to defuse the situation. These are the results of our national "Fear Factor" You're either normal or you're not. And if for some reason, you don't fit into whatever profile is deemed to be safe, then God help you.

So the real issue here isn't the air marshall or this guys wife. Unless something comes out to show that AM was some sort of "do or die, Skin headed thug", I'm just going to assume that he was just another working stiff settling in for another day on what is probably an absolutely mundane job. Same for the wife. I have a mentally ill step child and on the rare occasions when he does act out in public, my strongest desire is to get him home ASAP with a minimum of problems. SO the issue doesn't start or end with them. It's how our government is attempting to create an atmosphere of fear and paranoia in this country, how we as a nation are buying into it and how tragic situations like this are going to become a regularly terrifying occurrence.

[crispini]

99. This deserves to be its own thread.

Because there have been so many knee-jerk reactions around here the past few days, blaming one side or another, that it is refreshing to see one that acknowledges the complexity of the situation, and its deep roots.

[Marie26]

115. Exactly

Great post! You've stated the problem much more eloquently than I could. I think it's an "us vs. them" mentality that we all have, whether we admit it or not. As long as the severe tactics are used against "Them" (the poor, the mentally ill, minorities), we don't really care as long as it protects "us". (the middle class, the "normal", the majority). But we're all connected; and we need to be concerned about what's happening to all Americans. "They" might become "you" soon enough.

[BronxBoy]

120. Yep...

And the problem with the US versus THEM is that their very definitions are shape shifters, defying any attempt to give it a solid, tangible substance.

I mentioned the orthodox, Jewish gentleman above because his killing caused quite a stir when it occurred. The orthodox community was solidly behind Giulani expecially after Crown Heights debacle under Dinkins.

So when these killings happened to men of color, they weren't too concerned. But when it happened to one of theirs with the same justifications, they sat up and took notice.

It's like a cancer once it starts it can consume everything

[Walt Starr]

27. "...seat 24C, in the middle of the plane"

"When the incident began McAlhany was in seat 24C, in the middle of the plane."

He was in no position to hear anything beyond what he tells time. There is no way he would have heard the word had it been spoken.

This "testimony" means nothing, proves nothing, and disproves nothing.

[mattclearing]

30. Walt, even if the interviewee in question didn't see the whole thing

the characterization of the marshall is disturbing.

[Thorandmjolnir]

34. I think he was in perfect position

This is on CNN:

"Dave Adams, a spokesman for the Federal Air Marshal Service, said Alpizar had run up and down the plane's aisle yelling, "I have a bomb in my bag."

Adams said Alpizar then fled the aircraft and marshals confronted him on the boarding bridge.

"They asked the gentleman, 'Drop your bag, drop your bag. Come to the ground. I'm a federal law enforcement officer. Police. Drop your bag,'" Adams told CNN."

Don't you think a man on 24C would have noticed a guy, coming from further behind in the plane, yelling "I have a bomb in my bag"?

[mattclearing]

38. Yeah, that CNN report strikes me as utter bullshit.

I'm sure he said it as he walked up and down the aisle. He also wore a sign that said, "Shoot me, please."

[Thorandmjolnir]

39. what is utter BS?

The story? What the FBI says or what the witnesses says?

I am confussed.

[mattclearing]

43. The FBI statement.

The thing about wearing the sign was sarcasm.

[Thorandmjolnir]

48. Sorry,

It get's confusing here sometimes.

[mattclearing]

52. Yeah, but I'm the OP. n/t

[Yollam]

42. Why would the marshal be asking him to drop his bag

if he didn't have reason to think there might be a bomb in it in the first place.

Yes, they are trying to bolster their case. It's the smart thing to do. That doesn't mean the man is lying.

We've yet to hear from the wife on this point, and her words will carry more weight than those of some random passenger...

[Walt Starr]

53. Not when he's on the phone with his brother.

:eyes:

[mattclearing]

57. I doubt the phone covered both ears.

You can't walk and chew gum, either, can you?

It seems strange to me that you already have your mind made up on this.

[Walt Starr]

59. If I'm on the phone, I'm not paying attention to what's going on around me

this is why cell phone usage whiule driving has a lower reaction rate than drunk drivers!

[mattclearing]

60. Not 100% attention, but enough to notice if a guy says

"I have a bomb," repeatedly, as the CNN article says the FBI asserts. He tells a pretty detailed story for someone who supposedly was not paying attention, no?

[Walt Starr]

64. Or not

He may not have noticed even a tenth of what went on.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

68. Doesn't sound like any other passenger noticed what was going on....

...because they don't seemed to have heard the "b-word" either.

[Walt Starr]

75. Really, where are their interviews?

I see only a single passenger interviewed for this article.

[Marie26]

117. Nope - at least seven passengers

Check out the Orlando Sentinel article: At least seven passengers have gone on record stating that the man never mentioned a bomb.

"Witnesses heard no talk of bomb" http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-planefolo0905dec09,0,3421926.story?coll=orl-home-headlines

[mattclearing]

70. Yep. You have made up your mind.

Sorry, I didn't see the "do not disturb" sign on your forehead. :D

[Walt Starr]

74. Bring me multiple witnesses who explicitly state he DID NOT say bomb

all of whom were in First Class and you'll make me a believer.

Some idiot on a cell phone halfway down the airplane would not be in a position to know.

[mattclearing]

76. You shouldn't need multiple witnesses to be unsure.

I'm not really decided on it, but I'd trust someone who didn't have a vested interest in the situation over the FBI or this marshall.

[Walt Starr]

79. I trust the Feds bfore some idiot who admitted he was on his phone

at the time.

:eyes:

[mattclearing]

81. Cause they always tell the truth.

I can make :eyes: too. :D

Edit: And do you think Time would have run it if they didn't think this person was credible?

[Walt Starr]

82. Yes, I do

the media today runs on controversy so anything to fuel controversy helps the bottom line.

[mattclearing]

83. That I believe.

But I think it's too early to take anyone's word for it on this. And I'd like to see some of those eyewitness accounts of the incident that corroborate the FBI's story.

[Walt Starr]

84. My stance on this is predicated 100% on what has been reported to this

point in time.

I'll give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt until I see evidence to the contrary.

I also believe that is the stance of most Americans.

[mattclearing]

85. Thanks for speaking for most Americans.

Good thing I don't give a shit if I am in the majority.

Supposedly the stance of most Americans is that George W. Bush should be President, too, so you are in great company. :)

[Walt Starr]

86. I don't think that's the current majority stance

only the one from last November.

[mattclearing]

88. Yeah, but sadly, only the one from last November counts. n/t

[High Plains]

96. Right, the feds never go into full cover your ass mode.

They are interested parties. They shot someone who was NOT a terrorist bomber and killed an American citizen.

I would trust the disinterested passenger witnesses more than I would trust federal officals who just mistakenly shot somebody.

Don't tell me you believe something because a federal official says it. If so, boy, do I have a war to sell you!

[eridani]

101. OK, here's two more

Is three total enough, or does everybody on the plane have to say it.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/08/airplane.gunshot/index.html

The marshals say Alpizar announced he was carrying a bomb before being killed.

However, no other witness has publicly concurred with that account. Only one passenger recalled Alpizar saying, "I've got to get off, I've got to get off," CNN's Kathleen Koch reported.

<snip>

"She was just saying her husband was sick, her husband was sick," said passenger Alan Tirpak. When the woman returned, "she just kept saying the same thing over and over, and that's when we heard the shots."

Tirpak said he didn't hear Alpizar say anything.

<snip>

Passenger Mike Beshears recalled Alpizar running off the plane clutching a bag, chased by a man in a Hawaiian shirt.

That man turned out to be one of the two air marshals.

Like Tirpak, Beshears said he did not hear Alpizar say anything. "He just was in a hurry and exited the plane," he said.

[Marie26]

118. So, since there were multiple witnesses

Has this changed your position at all?

[Marie26]

116. You wouldn't notice a passenger

screaming he had a bomb if you were on a cell phone? Really? At this point, it's the word of 7 independent passengers who were first-hand witnesses vs. one Marshall spokesperson who has an interest in covering this up. Who's more likely to be telling the truth?

[RagingInMiami]

28. Will the real hijackers please stand up

[MindPilot]

29. I was under the impression from previous reports

that the plane had just landed from Colombia. Apparently it was set to take off from Miami; is that correct?

That fact puts the Air Marshall's actions in an entirely different light. The passengers were screened so there would be absolutely no possibility that anyone on board would have any sort of weapon. (a little :sarcasm:)

It is not terribly unusual for someone to want to leave a flight at the last minute; in that scenario killing the guy would be pretty dumb because you just lost your chance to find out where he put the bomb if there was one.

At first I thought the AM did exactly what he was supposed to do. But in light of this article, he was a little to quick on the trigger to say the least.

[Yollam]

33. Wow, a guy sitting half a plane away didn't hear it...

...so he must not have said it. (?)

:crazy:

[endarkenment]

36. If this were as cut and dry as you think it is

why is the FBI asking everyone if they heard anything like the 'b-word' coming out of this guy's mouth? In fact, what kind of crappy interview method is that anyway? Talk about leading the witness.

[Thorandmjolnir]

44. Right

If it was an unbiased interview, the question would have been: "Did he say anything"? or "What did he say as he was trying to leave the plane"?

[Thorandmjolnir]

37. Please read my post 34

The FBI says he ran up and down the plane yelling he had a bomb.
I think anyone on the plane would have heard that.

[mattclearing]

41. See post 34.

Clearly, someone is lying.

[Yollam]

45. I don't think so.

He could have said it and some passengers not heard it. That is well within the realm of possibility.

[Thorandmjolnir]

46. But why would the FBI say he was yelling

and running up and down the aisle?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

58. Because they weren't there and they're relying on the comments of the....

...Air Marshall who is trying to justify his actions?

Here's a hint...whenever you hear a quote from a police or FBI spokesperson, take it with a grain of salt.

[mattclearing]

50. This person was clearly paying attention to the situation.

If he was walking up and down the aisle saying he had a bomb, as the FBI said, this person would have heard it.

But believe what you want.

[burythehatchet]

66. No amount of evidence contradicting the initial BS

will satisfy those among us who bow to authority under all circumstances. Maybe that's the right thing to do. Personally, I have always rebelled against authority as soon as its apparent that the authority in question cannot be trusted.

[mattclearing]

77. We seem to have something in common.

:D

[Texasgal]

49. It also appears that the

that people are not sure if he had bipolar or not... just another part of the story that has yet to be determined...

Snip>
Alpizar took off running down the aisle, with his wife close behind him. "She was running behind him saying, 'He's sick. He's sick. He's ill. He's got a disorder," McAlhany recalls. "I don't know if she said bipolar disorder . She was trying to explain to the marshals that he was ill. He just wanted to get off the plane."
<snip

So we don't EVEN KNOW IF HE IS MENTALLY ILL EITHER FOLKS!!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

65. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't bipolar disorder considered to be....

...a mental illness? Why would his wife follow the man down the aisle trying to explain what was wrong if he really wasn't bipolar?

Maybe I misunderstood your post?

[burythehatchet]

69. emotionally invested in a position, and watching it

deteriorate. Its called grasping at straws. And the beautiful thing about anonymous message boards is that there is no obligation to re-assess one's position.

[Marie26]

119. Why did everyone automatically

believe the gov. version? W/no proof? That's a little scary to me. I've actually gotten onto the wrong flight hallway (huge airhead), then turned around & left. But I guess this is a death-penalty crime now? It's one thing to allow the benefit of the doubt - but the absolute willingness, almost need, to believe the government version is a little disturbing. .

[rman]

67. All treated as terrorists

Under the motto "better safe then sorry".(*

That's your security and your freedom right there.


*) as Ashcroft put it:
"...waiting for a crime to be committed, or waiting for there to be evidence of the commission of a crime didn’t seem to us to be an appropriate way to protect the American people."
-- Ascroft, US Congress


Goes to show that anything can be taken to an extreme.

[LostinVA]

71. I never thought it was - I said London Underground Redux

on here as soon as I heard about it... *sigh*

[Xenotime]

78. This government is starting to push people around...

these people need to be impeached. This country is beeing torn apart!

[Angry Girl]

80. I KNEW IT!

We were at a friend's house and watched the thing on CNN. We were commenting at the time that the information they were feeding us was strange because the bomb business was one of the very LAST bits on info they added, way after the fact that the poor bastard had been shot. The whole thing stinks and I hope the pro-killing people on this thread won't drink the Kool-aid so quickly next time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5541806&mesg_id=5541806

[madokie]

89. Just thinking but it sounds to me like the fella' was having a

panic attack and truly needed to get the f--- off that plane, possibility claustrophobia. In todays world we should have the capability to do something other that kill.

[mmonk]

102. That's why I reserved judgement

waiting to see the version of passengers.

[goodhue]

104. pointing guns at passengers

is that textbook procedure?

[mmonk]

105. Show of fast quick force

I believe is the new procedure much of the time. The psychology of a security state is to combine the feeling of fear and protection.

[EFerrari]

126. Aka, traumatic bonding. Stockholm comes to mind. n/t

[sofa king]

122. I should've known they were BSing when a "senior official" said it.

Again, I've been caught failing to apply the Bush Administration's "never tell the truth" rule.

[EFerrari]

125. Especially Senior Official. The guy's middle name must be

Pinnochio.

[Us vs Them]

123. If he REALLY did claim to have a bomb

ANYONE who heard such a thing would be more than eager to come forward and report it.

Try to place yourself in such a position. "Bomb? Did he just say bomb??" "What? Someone has a bomb?" That shit would be all anyone could talk about. The FBI wouldn't even have to ask the question.

However, this is not the case. You have seven witnesses in various parts of the aircraft now publically claiming the opposite. You also have a very suspicious FBI mode of questioning that could be considered potentially leading.

Evidence points to a trigger-happy accident.

[EFerrari]

129. Or, a very serious lack of training that will result

in more needless deaths that will effect everyone involved, including the shooter. :(