T7 B7 John Raidt Work Files- Shooting Story Fdr- Email From Team 7 To Zelikow Re Facts Vs Fiction 9-12-01 Case Study- Shooting Aa 11

TO: FM: RE: DATE:

Philip Zelikow Team 7 Facts vs. Fiction 9/12/2001

CASE STUDY

The Question: Do the facts support allegations that a shooting occurred aboard American Airlines Flight 11 on September 11, 2001? va nhoftinp o66utrad a 9'*~ ThfcWsti \s that unfolded or memomndunriSrttten on September 11,2001 ffinhtntl^dtmt nfriimUhr.pl Published accounts of the FAA memo

from aa-internal

hi include the following:

av. 9/11 Group Troubled By Gun Reporti FAA Error. Families Seeking Probe. February 28,2002. Washington Post, Airports Screened Nine of September 11 Hijackers. Officials Say. March 2,2002, pg Al 1. United Press International, Insider Notes from United Press International for March 6 2002

'evidence/derived from eyewitness-sccoffiffs of the ,#11, does not support a conclusion that a shooting is likely to have occurred. Background: FAA "Executive Summary" prepared at 5:13 pm on September 11,2001 by FAA personnel contain^ the following passage:

V 'i

"The American Airlines FAA principal Security Inspector (PSI) was notified by Suzanne Clarke of American Airlines Corporate Headquarters that an on board flight attendant contacted American Airline Operations Center and informed that a passenger located in seat 10B shot and killed a passenger in seat 9B at 9:20 a.m. The passenger killed was Dan Lewin, shot by passenger Satam Al Suqami. One bullet was reported to have been fired."

The FAA "Executive Summary" was produced by SHIRLEY MILLER IS IDENTIFYING THE AUTHOR OF THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY) from information collected if tine Federal Aviation Administration x!ommand Center during ito-activati$A W in response to the crisis on September 11,2001. Commission staff interviewed' Mfro is the FAA Principal Security Inspector cited in the "Executive Summary." [ t the summary accurately depicts the information she received from Ms. Clark. Ms. •SuBSmje* Clark of AiuuillUI Airiiaes testified to the General Accounting Office that she made no such statement tol land that the information in the memorandum is erroneous. (CONFIRMING THIS WITH GAO) , \:

\e C

attendants aboard AAL #11 to American Airlines personnel on the ground. At least onephejjg'tSIl was placed by flight attendant BETTY ONG to ihe American Airline>-rgservations centerjo'cated in Raleigh, North Carolina. At leasttwoj^ipjje^alls were placed by flight attendantAMY SWEENEY to American Airlines Flight Services personnel located at Bostgja!&£ogan International Airport. The first call from Ms. SWEENEY to Boston wa^ut^ofpMs. SWEENET calle^ back establishing the second phone contact. (See EJbcOment item : and FBI 30^2). In the course of th«lr phone calls, Ms. ONG and Ms. SWEENEY reported p4& onboard^luntil the grounding of the aircraft. (See FBI ; A four-minute portion of the estimated 20 to 25 minute phone call placed by Ms. to the American Airlines Reservation Center was recorded on tape. Ms. ONG reported , , that.(INSERT TRANSCRIPT INFO. I HAVE ON FILE AT FBI). The transcript provides no account of either the presence of a gun abeasdor the incidence of a shooting. The Commission staff has identified at least seven individualswho heard all,OTportions of, the phone calls from fliutn'mijjiLiiit/ls. ONG and Ms. SyWEENEY/......^ ^ =s ss«==Ba" ::":'::"9/i 1 Working-level The witnees include: MICHAEL WQJQPW^REU ^IV^^^dNE. Employee ' IWlNSTQ^ADLERafid Six of these witnesses were interviewed. fodividuaHv. by the (Staff can locate no FBI interview ofl \.

necalis.

witnessesepmt that both Ms. ONG and Ms. SWEENEY explicitly reported that the hijackers possessecMcnives, mace and possibly a bomb. Sre witnesses reporfcr

The witnesses report that Ms. ONG and Ms. SWEENEY reported that two flight attendants had been "stabbed" and that a passenger in business class who had been 1 slashed'was mortally wounded. The witnesses report no mention of any crewmember or passenger having been shot. .. / Accounts of the calls from Ms. ONG and Ms. SWEENEY were provided to the American Airlines System Operations Center (SOC) in Dallas, Texas, e^hii^the calls were in _prpgress>>The Commission can find no evidence thatseparate calif wace placed to the TEyany flight attendant from AAL #11. J

Discussion: Differing Stories A troubling aspect of the question about a shooting aboard AAL #HjwtrIe opposing statements by Ms. CLARK andl Imaintairisttiat Ms. CLARK reported the account of a shooting aboard AAL #11 exactb/lis described in the FAA memorandum. Ms. CLARK says she made no such:

79/11 / Working-level Employee

.e*» discrepant accounts focusron the questiorfof what Ms. CLARK toldl I The more important question/ft whether the tacts suggest that such a shootin^indeed took place. Clearly, the WR evidence of what occurred aboard AAL #11 is the eye witness reports pov33*4 by —Flight Attendant BETTY ONG and Flight Attendant AMY ^SWEENEY, and by the first hand witnesses Eyewitnesses Ms. ONG and Ms. SWEENEY placed phone calls from aboard the aircraft to American Airlines authorities on the ground in accordance with the air carrier's hijacking protocol. The protocol directs flight crews to contact ground personnel as soon as possible to provide a situation report of the emergency, including key details such as the precise seat signment of the perpetrators. « <

JL L»-ff 6 . thx UAxxJA'C^ &W rv^\* •^ i^_ y^JJ

u

^**

The Gommiwion note^nat the flight attendants did their duty with remarkable courage and composure, afl&femained in phone contact with authorities up to the grounding of the aircraft. Neither the tape recorded portion of Ms. ONG's call, nor the accounts by six separate witnesses to the calls indicate/that either Ms. ONG or Ms. SWEENEY reported the presence of a gun or the incidence of a shooting. The flight attendants were quite specific j about the kind of weapons they reported present—knives, mace and a bomb—and the ^o nature of the assaults on aboard—the "stabbing" of two other flight attendants and a passenger.

Wi

/

A third flight attendant

U>

it perhaps a third flight attendants! tuated in a different part of the cabin than Ms. ONG and Ms. SWEENEYjinightJaave witnessed a shooting fi&vhich Ms. ONG and Ms. SWEENEY wcro unaware, mil ffti»
e*c»,-B$Qff can find n

irearm experts indicate that the sound of a in the cabin of an airc is implausible that Ms. ONG would be unmistakable and clearly evident to a and Ms. SWEENEY would have neglected to report a g if they knew one had aboard the aircraft without occurred, but it is equally implausible that a shooting occ them knowing it. ^ Dl vM<> V* can find no evidence of any phone contact by any of the other flight crew with theSOC. Indeed, tlio reeo chows that the SOC was apprised of both the ONG and SWEENEY calls while they were in progress, and thetBfete aware of the "stabbing" The fa* that the account of a shooting that no witness xeaaJls. was relay' ic account of a stabbing that is widely reported by the witnessei V ^/

M

notes that the alleged victim of the shooting was seated in 9(D). This seat is located in the business section of the aircraft. The stabbing account provided by the eye witnesses indicatesHhe victim of the stabbing was in business class. It is highly possible that the form of attack on the business class passenger—the only individual attack upon a passenger reported by eyewitnesses—became garbled as the account of the assault was relayed among Airline and FAA authorities in the fog and confusion of the , unfolding events of the day. Hijacker purchases

Other relevant evidence bears mentioning. While investigators have uncovered evidence of numerous knife purchases by the 19 hijackers, no firearm purchases have been *-U

Hijacker tactics rfhtefc affhe tactics of all four hijacking teams involved in the plot were similar. No evidence has been uncovered to suggest that firearms were used by the hijackers on any of the other flights. On the contrary, the common tactic among the four

\

I

/ teams of employing knives, bo/ cutters and mace is well established by the evidence, fcr seems unlikely that one of the teams would depart from the tactical discipline of commonstrategy. Shooting account related to UAL #175 ^f

The evidence indicates that authorities did receive a report of a "shooting" aboard one of the other flights hijacked on September 11, 2001. A passenger aboard UAL Flight &T75, Mr. PHILIP BURTON HANSON placed two phone calls to his father LEE HANSON to report the hijacking of the aircraft. According to the FBI interview ofJiTfeg^-HANSON, his son reported that a flight attendant had been stabbed, and that the hijackers appeared to have knives and mace, and claimed to have a bomb. PHUP HANSON requested that his father alert the airlines to the 1 emergency. After hanging up with Ids Son* LEE HANSON immediately contacted hia local polke department to report the hijacking.

foVi

third party, BRUCE DUCORT (apparently a family friend—we need^omd out), calling on behalf of the passenger's father, contacted United Airlines/ Mr. DUCORT told representatives of United Airlines that a passenger calling from aboard UAL #175 had told his father someone had been shot , ^J6 QjA*Jk{ ^£wk

»

V

D"

5 phone call from LEE HANSON to CAPTAIN JAMES C ANDEE of the Easton, Clonnecticut Police Department was tape-recorded. The tape recording indicates no n of a shooting aboard UAL 175r Staff contacted CAPTAIN CANDEE of the Easlpn, Connecticut police. Mr. CANDEE confirms that LEE HANSON .mentioned his son's report of a stabbing, but no shooting aboard the hijacked aircraft. ^LxjQjtAj)

y>| UAL oU

PHILIP: THINGS WE NEED TO DO BEFORE WE FINALIZE THIS R E R R T

an, Working-level Employee

1) See the FAA working room's butcher paper on which the shooting notation was made so we can see exactly how specific it was. 2) Talk to someone who was in the working room who can attest to the confusion. 3) Review a transcript of the call from the UAL #175 passenger's father to the sheriff to confirm that no message was made about a shooting. 4) Perhaps talk to the passenger's father to confirm that the son said nothing about a shooting. 5) Perhaps talk to the family friend to confirm it was an instance of "telephone." 6) Talk to the AAL FAA Principal Security Inspector 7) Talk to Suzanne Clarke of AAL to see where she got the shooting story.

/i ~ ^^

"A

( __ METHODOLOGY Reviewed FBI reports naming each of the Flight Attendants to determine any indication of a phone call or of gun reports: y |JV( Findings: Named in 13 FBI 302's; two calls in evidence FAOng Named in FBI 302's; ^Wcalls in evidence •FA Sweeney FA Arestegui: Named in two FBI 302's: no calls reported or in evide FA Collman: Named in two FBI 302's; no calls reported or in evii Named in two FBI302's; no calls reported or in FA Low: Named in five FBI 302's; no calls reported or in evicubnce FA Martin: Named in four Fpl 302's; no calls reported or in evidence FA Nicosia: Named in two FBI 302 ;s; no calls reported or in evidence FA Roger: Namedin one FBI 302; no calls reported or in evi FA Snyder: Search lor Documents containing the following terms y AAM\ Shot AND flight attendant^- Zero documents Shooting AND flight attendanty-Zero documents Shot ANDflightAND 1 1 - Zero documents Shooting ANDflightAND 1 1 - Zero documents

0

Shooting AND hijack* ~ Zero documents *Means the search engine will search every permutation of the word. Documen