A Seattle-bound flight from Hawaii landed safely, and on time, Thursday night after U.S. military jets were ordered to escort it because of hijacking concerns, NBC has learned.
FBI sources say the Honolulu field office of the bureau received a call, from the ground, stating that an individual aboard the flight was going to hijack the plane.
The North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD, called in fighter jets from the Oregon National Guard which flew alongside Alaska Air flight 819 from Kona until it landed at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport at about 7 p.m. (10 p.m. ET).
FBI agents met the plane when it landed in Seattle, and the individual was taken off the plane without incident, according to NBC-affiliate in Seattle, KING 5.
One individual is in FBI custody at this hour being questioned by agents, the report said.
According to Alaska Airlines officials, that individual slept through most of the flight, nothing out of the ordinary happened onboard and the crew did not perceive any danger.
The FBI says there is also no danger at the Seattle airport.


Ex boyfriend or girlfriend made the call? Send them a bill then send them to jail.
I think the suspect had greeted his friend Jack while on the plane, shouting 'Hi, Jack' - thus a 'hijack' scare.
If the person did not do anything then what cause did the FBI have for taking him into custody. This is a prime example of what has gone wrong with our justice system since 9/11. The FBI, or any law enforcement agency should not have the right to detain an American citizen without having probable cause to believe they have committed a crime. An phone call making an accusation without any evidence to back it up is not probable cause to detain someone. This person needs to be released and the person who made the call detained and questioned to determine why they made the call and what if any evidence they have. If they can not produce any evidence then that person should be charged.
JS in SD
They have probable cause because someone named him. He was on the plane so they detain him until an investigation is completed.
it was Manti Te'o invisible girlfriend coming for a visit !
@starbuck49 - An uncorroborated accusation by a single individual that is not backed up by any evidence should not be probable cause to detain someone anymore than a single individual simply saying you are dealing drugs with no corroboration or physical evidence to back it up is probable cause for the police to search your home. The standards for what constitutes probable cause are a little higher than just a single person with an unsupported accusation - that was until after 9/11 and unless it is the FBI and they start throwing around the word terrorism. Then it seems they do not even need probable cause to detain you anymore.
JS in SD-it depends upon the situation. If an individual may be an immediate threat to himself/herself and/or others, the military or FBI will detain or diffuse him/her first. If you call and say that your neighbors are selling drugs out of their back door, the police usually will use surveillance or informants to gather more evidence. If you call and say your neighbor is beating his/her kid, they will go in aggressively.
Pay attention to the laws our government is passing. Today you can be held without cause, no charges filed and held for as long as the arresting authorities want to hold you. Our President promises that will not happen to the citizens of the United States, but it is the law!
Starbuck, the only thing to investigate here is the phone call.
This is always a double-edged sword. Had they not done anything and this turns out to be a real threat, the same people jumping on them would have asked why they didn't do anything when they had information.
Think about it.
JS in SD, you must be a jail-house lawyer. You don't know sh!t. Law enforcement only needs reasonable suspicion to detain. A phone call indicating that someone is about to commit a crime is reasonable suspicion. Probable cause is required for searches that would normally require a warrant.
If the FBI had gotten a tip and NOT done anything and the guy had pulled something you'd be one of the people crying How Could They not Do Anything. Damned if they do damned if they don't.
Probable cause would be required for searches of persons and automobiles that would normally require a warrant is what I should have stated.
I agree with stonepipe2. It sounds very much as if somebody had it in for the hijacking "suspect", and an ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend would be probable suspects. So too would a disgruntled, former employee of the "suspect".
Man or women, I'll be he [or she] was one surprised person when they arrived in Seattle.
Stupid stunt. Hope they find the caller.
I'm sure it was precautionary. They have to check it out, see if he's carrying any box-cutters, ceramic knives, etc. At the minimum, they probably want information regarding who is angry enough with him to target him in this manner.
Yes it is probable cause. It's unfortunate but must be done.
You speak of physical evidence. This takes time. More time than a hijacker taking over a plane and flying it into a building. Post 911, we just cannot take the chance.
The only way to go about it is, interrogate the guy on the plane & the caller. If they don't know who the caller was, the guy on the plane most likely will have a good idea of that. Find out if it was a scorned lover etc... and simply take legal action from there. This is all we can do nowadays.
Again, post 911, we just cannot take these chances anymore. We are not worried about a single individual as much as all the other "Innocent" passengers. I wouldn't mind the lay-over if I were a passenger. I would give the FBI Kudos for doing their job correctly...
Confussed: John McCain co-wrote the legislation that passed that you can be arrested, held for an undeterminable amount of time, without telling you the reason, also in that same legislation, you can be put to work for the gov't without any compensation. I wish I still had that info saved I'd share where I found it.
Who else wrote it?
Bet it was a passenger who was upset with the additional fees for bags...
Probably called in the threat on their cell phone, while sitting in plane..
And I'm saying enough with the paranoia. Go back to your bunker.
GM Creek
PBgeorgia,
McCain did not write legislation concerning people being put to work for no compensation. You may be thinking of Executive Order 11000. http://www.disastercenter.com/laworder/11000.htm or Executive Order 12656 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12656.html . Both provide for wages and benefits. The Federal Government cannot institute forced labor without compensation because that is know as slavery and it is outlawed. If the Federal Government ever DID try to do such a thing then that is why we were given the right to bear arms and why nobody should want that right infringed.
even if McCain had not screwed the Constitution six ways to Sunday, the fed would have the right to detain ANY SUSPECT for up to 72 hours for questioning and investigation. Therefore, under the old rules or the new rules, they were within proper conduct to take the suspect into custody.
The issue I have severe questions with is this: What good were the escort fighter planes? What was their purpose? What were they going to do? If there was a highjacker onboard, were they going to shoot the plane down killing all on board to eliminate one potential threat? Seems to me, the more valorous approach would have been to have the pilots on alert, ready to scramble if and when they were made aware of an actual threat, i.e. the plane deviated from its charted course. Now we have blown a million or so in military budget putting these pilots and their birds in the air for ... uhhhh ... oh, yeh. Something that would not have been made moot once the plane landed safely at its destination.
Every day I get up and say a prayer. It usually goes something like this.
"Thank you for another day. Thank you that I don't have to get legal advice from self-important posters on the internet. Amen."
wordsmith,
If the plane were taken over by a hijacker with the expectation that it was going to be used as a missile then yes, shooting it down would be the correct action.
The jets escorted it because it could have deviated right before landing and been used as a missile before any jets could be scrambled. What if it had been used to kamikazee a Naval ship en route? You would just sit back and wait to see what happens? What kind of idiot are you? I'm glad you aren't in charge of defense.
Don't buy into the - after 9/11 stuff...there were multiple times pre-9/11 that fighter jets were scrambled for off course planes...hell, just read about golfer Payne Stewart.
We should be questioning why they weren't scrambled on 9/11...oh yeah, we were doing simulations of the exact same thing that day, but we'd never thought of it happening before, or so we're told.
As for the detention of someone - 9/11 has allowed for things like that to happen.
TSA groped my peanuts, gerd dermert!!
Also, with the rules of the cockpit being locked while the plane is in flight, how would someone take over control of the airliner?
Why would there be a need to shoot it down if the pilot and co-pilot are the only ones who could be in the cockpit?
A hijacker cannot take control of a plane anymore, they can only take control of the passengers on the plane.
What makes you think that they cannot pull open the emergency exits?
Possibly have an explosive?
Hold a ceramic knife to the throat of the stewardess?
Take that ceramic knife and start slicing into the wiring system....
A 250lb muscle head can kick the cockpit door in.....
There are a "LOT" of ways to create havoc on a plane. Especially if you're a disgruntled airline mechanic knowing all the ins & outs of a planes operations........
Payne Stewarts jet was slightly steered away from creating a disaster by the fighter jets tail winds due to everyone on board were dead from the plane decompressing...Yeah, I do remember that one. I think it went down in the ocean or something if I recall...
sleepinsadie,
Nothing is foolproof. There are scenarios in which someone could gain access to the cockpit. Perhaps while flight attendants enter the cockpit a hijacker takes them by surprise? Perhaps a series of executions on board or maybe an accomplice on the ground takes the pilot's family hostage and threatens to kill them in order to gain access? Better to be safe than sorry.
GM Creek Dog - go back and look at your earlier post, as you talked about a hijacker taking over a plane also.
Do you really think a person can kick open a cockpit door? I thought regulations were put in place strengthening them so that couldn't happen along with inside locks?
Please tell me how a hijacker cutting wires or opening emergency exits would allow them to control the plane and fly it into any destination (such as a building)?
Exactly, they could create havoc on the plane, but not take it over and fly it to or into anything...how would shooting it down remedy that?
Payne Stewart's jet crashed into a field on American soil.
Let's be realistic, if a hijacker cannot take over the controls of flying the plane, it does absolutely nothing to have fighter jets flying next to it - any hijacker could cause the same havoc you spoke of with the fighter jets flying next to it. They provide no additional safety to anyone anywhere.
Ron B - don't you think flight control would be in contact with the pilot who would be able to let them know they still have control of the plane?
It's a false sense of "safety" and/or "security".
Hey Creek, it's impossible to open an emergency exit in flight on modern passenger planes. This link will explain why.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/getline/2005-08-08-ask-the-captain_x.htm
They are not going to shoot it down as long as they contact with the pilots and they are not under duress. The fighters are there in case they somehow manage to enter the cockpit and take control. They are there as a last resort, to handle things if the worst happens. No one really believes they are going to kill 250+ people just because some lunatic is holding a knife on someone, do they? But worst case scenario, you send the jets up when the pilot reports some lunatic trying to kick in the cockpit door. It's better to have them on station and not need them, than it would be to have to send them up after you lose contact with a plane.
I understand that Chris...but like I said, it's a false sense of security or safety. If I'm on a plane and nothing is going on (such as on this flight) and all of a sudden there are fighter jets on both sides, that would make me think - wtf, and be more concerned they might shoot us down than anything else.
And like I said - we should be questioning why it didn't happen on 9/11, as it happened before and after, but oddly, not that day.
sleepinsadie
You aren't letting it sink in. You don't know what could take place that would allow a hijacker to gain access to the cockpit. You don't know if the hijacker could have already been in the cockpit and forcing the crew to speak normally with air control and denying a hijacking had taken place. You know what they say about when you assume. As I stated, and is the general rule in safety, better to be safe than sorry.
Just stop trying to defend your position. Have the class to admit when you are wrong.
Ron B - I've let it sink in and I have thought about things...like I said, I believe it's a false sense of security and safety.
Nowhere did I say it shouldn't be done, I just questioned what it provides - that's two (2) different discussions.
And bro, defend my position? I'm just having a conversation on a messageboard - I'm not here to put people down or try to prove I'm right and you're wrong, I like the exchange of ideas with people who think differently than I think, if I only want to talk to people who agree with me all the time, life would be boring, I probably wouldn't learn much and I'd have to spend a crap-load of time conversing with the mirror.
While I agree that there could be different scenarios for things to happen - I'm pretty sure that if there were a sophisticated project to do it, there wouldn't be some idiot giving it away with a phone call to make sure the flight is intercepted by fighter jets, as that would be totally counter-intelligent to what they would have to do to gain control of a plane and fly it where they want to.
Using common sense, not simply assuming, can be useful.
"Exactly, they could create havoc on the plane, but not take it over and fly it to or into anything...how would shooting it down remedy that?"
IM NOT PLANNING ON DOING THIS BUT IF and only IF I wanted to take the cockpit of the plane, which i will never do, i'd find out who will be piloting, see if either of the pilots has family, then have someone hold the family hostage until the cockpit is open. That's the most obvious way to get in the cockpit...
Also if a single pilot is contacted and hears his/her family is in fact taken hostage, he/she could be instructed not to tell anyone and even lie to the rest of the crew/passengers. No one but this single pilot would know until the actual cockpit is taken... if this is done at the right time the plane could reach its target before any jets escort it. The plane would of course have to have a flight plan relatively near whatever intended target the attacker is after. Ive been watching too much 24.
Hey Ryan - I understand that scenario and in that scenario, wouldn't the pilot have to know before the hijacker could even be in the cockpit and then shouldn't the pilot have enough intelligence to let flight control know what's going on before the hijacker was in there? Or wouldn't you think there's some code wording a pilot would use if they were compromised or that there's an alarm on the cockpit door?
Let's be realistic - a hijacker would have to communicate that he has the family somehow and shouldn't the pilot confirm this before allowing anyone in, if they even allowed them in?
First of all, how would you find out in advance who will be piloting the plane? Second, the pilot isn't going to open the cockpit, because as soon as he does his family will be dead and so will everyone on the plane and probably hundreds on the ground.
"Hey Ryan - I understand that scenario and in that scenario, wouldn't the pilot have to know before the hijacker could even be in the cockpit and then shouldn't the pilot have enough intelligence to let flight control know what's going on before the hijacker was in there? Or wouldn't you think there's some code wording a pilot would use if they were compromised or that there's an alarm on the cockpit door?
Let's be realistic - a hijacker would have to communicate that he has the family somehow and shouldn't the pilot confirm this before allowing anyone in, if they even allowed them in?"
Pilots like the rest of us have cell phones usually. The person taking hostages would call the pilot, prove he does in fact have his family (and more than likely prove he/she is she is willing to do some messed up things), and tell the pilot if anything is done to stop them then the family (or whats left) will be... uh.. even worse... like tortured and killed. If this is done close enough to the target, the person holding hostages would explain there's most likely not enough time to stop him from messing up the family, which could be true, and if he even hears a siren nearby, well, he will "use his imagination" or something else cliche and easy to understand. This is a pretty messed up convo but if someone threatens to cut our ur loved ones eyes or something and the only practical way to stop it is by opening the cockpit door then it gets a lot harder to tell people things.
"First of all, how would you find out in advance who will be piloting the plane? Second, the pilot isn't going to open the cockpit, because as soon as he does his family will be dead and so will everyone on the plane and probably hundreds on the ground."
I cant answer that first one but I wouldnt doubt its impossible.
If one hears their family getting tortured to death anyways then one might take any chance one has. The person holding hostages doesnt exactly have to wait on anything other than making sure they are alive long enough to take the cockpit. Then of course theres proly some agent on the plane that could kill the hijackers, but they got the cockpit open.. which was my original argument.
I cant answer that first one but I wouldnt doubt its possible.***
Ryanb - yeah bro, maybe a little too much 24...please don't tell me the "b" stands for Bauer - hahaha
Wouldn't you think if they went to those measures that they are going to kill your family anyway? And that, as stanscript said, then it would be your family, you and all the passengers that will be dead?
And you really think in that instance if you alerted authorities that they'd go sirens blaring to where your family is held just so the hijackers accomplices are alerted?
Wouldn't you be more apt to say - You're gonna kill my family anyway, why would I let your accomplices here on the plane kill me, my crew, the passengers and possibly people on the ground?
sleepinsadie,
You have no idea how a person would react. How many people are abducted and murdered every year by someone who pulls up in a car, points a gun at their victim, tells them to get in the car or they will shoot and the victim complies. Even though the victim fears or knows they are likely to die if they get in the car, they comply. Why? Part of them hopes that if they comply things will turn out alright. Would I comply? Never. Would you comply? You sound as though you wouldn't. Guess what? Not everyone is like me or you. People are conditioned to comply. From childhood, we are told throughout school, "There is never a good reason to fight" and we are punished if we fight back against an attacking student. How many students get suspended or expelled for fighting, even if they were fighting in self defense? "Let the proper authorities handle it", we are told. That is why 9/11 was so successful. Our society has created generations of victims. We should strive to be like ants or bees which swarm a perceived threat to the safety of the colony. But, we can't. People would call it barbaric vigilantiism. Stop assuming that people will always do what you think is the right thing.
You also seem to think that the cockpit door is never opened. Did you not read about the Air France flight that went down in the Atlantic a couple of years ago? It was just revealed that the pilot was not even in the cockpit when the in-flight emergency occurred. How could he have not been in the cockpit if the cockpits are locked up for the flight?
"Ryanb - yeah bro, maybe a little too much 24...please don't tell me the "b" stands for Bauer - hahaha"
Only Bauer can stop them lmao. and no the b doesnt stand for Bauer lol
"Wouldn't you think if they went to those measures that they are going to kill your family anyway?"
Most likely, but your left with a guarantee they will be killed in the worst ways imaginable or a small chance they wont. The person holding the hostages could just threaten to kill them quickly rather than...
"And that, as stanscript said, then it would be your family, you and all the passengers that will be dead?"
Hundreds of passengers dead + collateral or the people you love and care about the most being tortured to death. Not everyone might be willing to let them go like that. I cant say I would when I imagine being in that actual situation. Im not trying to be offensive here but it really is not an easy decision. At least not for everyone. Its a good thing im not a pilot.
"And you really think in that instance if you alerted authorities that they'd go sirens blaring to where your family is held just so the hijackers accomplices are alerted?"
Does it matter in this hypothetical situation? They show up or they dont. Either way it would most likely be too late no matter how it played out for the hostages. Again if the plane is close enough to the target I doubt they would have time to show up with sirens or some type of highly trained swat team if it can be planned so.
"You also seem to think that the cockpit door is never opened. Did you not read about the Air France flight that went down in the Atlantic a couple of years ago? It was just revealed that the pilot was not even in the cockpit when the in-flight emergency occurred. How could he have not been in the cockpit if the cockpits are locked up for the flight?"
Another good point. Maybe the pilot goes to take a piss. The hostages could just be used as a backup plan. As for knowing who's piloting the plane before it's in the air, you can find pilots in airports before flights at times. or after flights. It would take a little pre-planning and such to find the right pilot, but get a few drinks in, buddy up with the pilot, ask him where hes flying. Thats an oversimplification more than likely but pilots have regular lives like us too
RonB - I understand your breakdown of the human psyche, but do expect more from professionally trained pilots, a great percentage of whom have military training, to be different than the person on the street having a gun pulled on them.
You talk of assuming, but you're assuming they'll react the same.
9/11 was successful because of many reasons, but I don't want to get into my thoughts on that.
Though in your description of ants/bees, it made me think of rats and put the Pearl Jam song, Rats, in my head - so, thanks for that...you know...they don't scury when something bigger comes their way, they pack themselves together.
Your using the Air France flight to compare to this is totally different. Did that happen in the US? No. Do they have to follow US regulations? Don't know, probably not. Etc...
There is a major difference to me between a flight where some moron calls in and says there's a hijacker on board and then the pilot is contacted (which I do have to guess happened) and he says nothing is wrong or happening on board and the flight continues on like that and one where a flight goes off course and the pilot can't be contacted or they know the cockpit has been compromised, etc.
Do you see every situation the same?
"RonB - I understand your breakdown of the human psyche, but do expect more from professionally trained pilots, a great percentage of whom have military training, to be different than the person on the street having a gun pulled on them."
Not trying to gang up on you seeing as you weren't addressing me on this one anyways, but to further express my point: if somehow a terrorist did get on the plane, with a gun, pointed at my head, I would be scared. Even if it is certain death despite training, I could die that way to help save lives. But as for pulling a gun or worse on those i care about the most.... well lets just say im done with this convo for now. Jack Bauer on the other hand would tackle the attacker after impossibly dodging bullets, maybe punch him multiple times, and throw him off the plane xD
Ryanb(auer)...well, of course there's always what if's and what could's, but I'm dealin with this situation as it is...if I knew hijackers had taken over and the cockpit was compromised, of course I'd say drop that plane in an f'n second.
And I don't feel ganged up on - as I previously stated, I like the exchange of thoughts with people who will actually carry on a "conversation" (if this can be called that) who have differing ideas/thoughts.
I understand what you're saying, who wouldn't feel some negative thought (scared, etc) with a gun pointed at their head? (well except for Bauer or possibly Rambo)
No. I think in various worst case scenarios. I don't think about how it's not possible. The hijacking scenarios I described are unlikely but not impossible. A good defense is planning for as many contingencies as possible and then leaving room for the unknown. It is irresponsible to trust that people will always follow protocol or react in a manner that is in the best interest of others.
Did you read about the little girl in Philadelphia who was abducted from school? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262761/Ive-stolen-Moment-Nailla-Robinson-5-taken-school-stranger-Muslim-style-garment.html The school personnel broke common protocol and released the child into the custody of someone who was not a parent or a designated representative.
Bro - I think of different scenarios too - which I believe I've expressed in my posts. I also believe that different scenarios need to be treated differently.
Of course it's good to be prepared for as many possible scenarios as you can be and in the case of airline hijacking to always think it's the worst first and work backwards from there. But I also think once you have info and a knowledge of what's going on, you adjust your thinking.
Yes, I've read that Philly story and its follow-ons. The school administration and whoever was involved in allowing that little girl to be taken by someone who said she was the girl's mom but provided a different name than the mother's name and was not verified as being her (as she had on the niqab) should be fired and never allowed to be responsible for children again. I'm curious as to why they've questioned the father twice also.
Agreed, adjust your thinking but do not let your guard down. Do not assume that a situation will remain controlled until the flight is on the ground and the threat neutralized. I firmly believe that the fighter escort was appropriate even though it turned out to be unnecessary.
I agree with not letting the guard down...but after talking to the pilot and understanding that there is absolutely nothing going on on the plane out of the ordinary, it's still on its expected course, etc, they could have pulled the fighters back.
I think it was appropriate to scramble them and find out what was going on, but after understanding there was absolutely no situation on the plane, they are completely unnecessary.
By the way - very cool pic in your avatar.
If the phone call turns out to be a prank, the caller should be billed for the fuel for the escort fighters.
RonB: If I can find this "piece of legislation", co-written by John McCain and (drawing a blank), I will send you a message and you can read it. My boss showed it to me several months ago. It's alarming. Also, on gov't property in a western state, recently, I will find the link to this also, several enclosed 53' trailers containing cuffs and shackles... this is the government's property. I will see if I can retrieve the info and send to you when I have time.
Sounds like someone was playing a really sick, stupid prank that could really have put people in danger. Trace that call and bust that "informer"!
women and there fatal attraction bull@!$%# !
you to get even screw one his friends and tape it, but to have jets scrambled to intercept the plane that they have full authority to shoot down in open water is a little over the top !
Did I miss something? I didn't see anywhere in the article that the caller was a woman. Your comment, Mike, is a little over the top!
Mike is over the top, and somewhat ignorant. It would be " their", not "there". I think someone has a problem with women, and blames them for all of his troubles!
Mike's syntax and sentence structure could be used in a book on journalism...in the chapter covering what not to do.
I could never understand why fighter jets are scrambled to escort a potentially hijacked plane. What are they going to do, shoot it down and kill all the passengers?
Norad DOES have that authority now. That was decided after 911 when no one knew who would give that order. Now the generals at NORAD have authorization.
yes. as a matter of fact, they could shoot it down...and what a perfect flight to shoot down before it gets to a populated area.
Yep, they will now take down a plane and everyone on it to save people in buildings or on the ground. If there had been authorization and enough warning on 9/11, they likely would have done the same thing.
The idea is that killing a few hundred on the plane is better then having a few thousand on the ground dead.
a few witnesses say that's what they thought they saw happen to flight 94 or 91? in Pen
Aim it toward a highrise in downtown Seattle full of office workers and that's exactly what they will do. Where were you during the terrorist attacks in 2001??
dear alkyda Maybe. If that had happened on 9-11, the death toll would have been about 1/3 of what actuall happened. Tragic, but the loss of life and real estate would have been lessened. And Bush still could have invaded Iraq.
Yes.
If it looks like it's going to be crashed into a huge building in a major metropolitan area with thousands of deaths resulting, then yes, they are going to shoot it down and kill all the passengers.
Yes.
And many are convinced that is what happened to Flight 93 in PA.
The first news reports are not consistent with the "let's roll" story. First reports said several times that debris were scattered over large distance. Then that info vanished from the news, period. Forever.
I doubt that the "let's roll" callers were able to use cell phones for any length of time at that speed and altitude, based on what I know of the technology. I doubt that the "let's roll" group would have been aware of the other hijackings and crashes. This all happened too fast for them to have the information. I doubt that the "let's roll" group would have spent time calling relatives prior to their attack on the cockpit.
Bush almost let his justification for taking the aircraft down slip out in a press conference statement later, but he apparently caught himself when he realized they were asking a different question.
Where were the jets on 9-11? One of the planes flew halfway across the country AFTER being hijacked and flew into WTC and no jets were dispatched. And they've always had authority to shoot down a hijacked plane or one with incapacitated pilots. When Payne Stewart's jet crashed a total of 5 AF jets were dispatched to intercept that plane to see why it was off course (from Florida to Dallas) and did not answer controllers. Two of them escorted it until it was determined that it would exhaust it's fuel and crash into a unpopulated area in S Dakota. This incident occurred in 1999, and at that time they said they would have shot the plane down if it had been likely to crash into a populated area.
Yes, they will. Sad scenario, but it's the world Muslims have forced us to live in. Might be better to shoot it down than have it crash into a building potentially killing thousands. Unfortunately, there are no good options available. As far as waiting for something bad to happen on a plane before arrests are made ... no can do. All you'll have is a few hundred dead bodies. Law enforcement MUST be proactive regarding this sort of thing. Being reactive means nothing but always being too late.
Pray Hard - this is not "the world Muslims have forced us to live in," as we scrambled fighter jets to planes multiple times before 9/11 when we had no idea about Muslim terrorists...unless you think Payne Stewart was a "golf terrorist".
You should be questioning why we didn't scramble them that day - the only recorded day we didn't when we had planes go off radar.
And inMYday, I do believe you are right - if you look at the wreckage in the field and how it's strewn over miles, there's no way that plane crashed in that field.
@Sleepinsadie,
Actually, while what pray hard said was not politically correct, multiples of the hijackings that the American people have suffered through are committed by Muslim terrorist. Obviously you don't study history, but there have been multiple flights in the 70's and 80's hijacked by Muslim terrorist. See the attached:
Actually Tracy, you just proved my point...were those all Muslim hijackings you listed throughout those decades - NO. So to say it's just Muslim extremists that caused this is utterly ridiculous.
Maybe you should read the history you just posted.
Here's an example from what you posted:
Dammit - those FedEx terrorists caused all this.
I think there needs to be a limit on the length of a post.
My scroll wheel just wore out.
You stated that prior to 9/11 we didn't know about Muslim terrorist, I stated in post 3.13 we had dealings with multiple muslim terrorist priot to 9/11. To say I proved your point is lunacy, I proved you a troll.
@inmyday, sorry about scroll wheel fracture and everyone else. Everyone says to post the facts, so I did it.
I wouldn't say "troll" - but it's not just due to Muslim terrorists and yes, maybe I did word that incorrectly...Why wouldn't it be because of Cuban Terrorists, as your list points out that the first US Airline hijacked was from a Cuban Terrorist or American Terrorist, as DB Cooper hijacked an American plane before any Muslims or the FedEx guy that wanted to use the plane as a "cruise missle" before that's documented by Muslims?
But see, everyone wants to run around saying - this is due to Muslims, like there were no hijackings before and fighter jets were never scrambled before. I pointed out that fighter jets were scrambled for a white guy flying in America (Payne Stewart) well before any Muslim hijacked a plane and flew it into a building in America.
Your facts show that it's not just Muslims and that it didn't just start with Muslims, or did I read your list wrong and it was only Muslims listed? It shows that a Cuban and Americans hijacked American planes well before Muslims ever did.
I would think that making a false report of an act of terrorism would itself be an act of terrorism and prosecuted as such. The guy dumped you and he is going back to his ex, get over it.
Or possible that real terrorist are testing out responses.
I'm glad the Oregon ANG finally has something useful to do instead of buzzing low over my house and rattling my windows playing tag with each other. Also, I hope the authorities are aware of the ground caller's identity in case this was a prank.
This is the umpteenth time the Oregon ANG intercepted a flight over Seattle, Washington! We have McCHORD AFB and WHIDBEY ISLAND NAVAL AIR STATION! What the hell are they doing? I know they mostly handle airlift and anti-sub, but don't they have an F-16 or F-18 or something to actually protect the State they are in? Makes me feel safe here in Kitsap County, Washington, where most of those flights make there approach run! And anyway, where, if in worst case scenario, would the Oregon ANG have shot this plane down if needed? Probably nowhere safer than the USAF in Washington would have.
It is the responsibility of NORAD and the Oregon Air National Guard to intercept unknown aircraft and now, to intercept potentially threatening commercial aircraft. That has been their charge for decades. McChord AFB doesn't have fighter jets. Whidbey and its EF-18G jamming aircraft aren't quite configured for the task and are further from Hawaii than Oregon.
@ballistic362- all that "playing tag" they do is practice for an actual intercept. BFM: Basic Fighter Manuveuring. Playing video games just doesn't cut. They have to get out there and do it.
Sierra Hotel, OrANG!
No, they "may" have a right IF the airplane has been taken over. The Pilot's cabin door is locked and even IF a hijacker takes over the the Passenger area, the Pilot will be in contact with the fighter plane and could either turn around, fly to the nearest airport, etc. Why would there be a need to shoot down a plane that is controlled by its Pilot? A hijacker, would be over taken by the Passengers. This is a different era. Pity.
good point.
The plane wasn't taken over, that's why they ended up just escorting it to the airport. If they were unable to contact the pilot the situation would have escalated and other measures taken.
If the pilot still has control of the aircraft, they won't have any reason to shoot it down. That's the reason fighters are sent to communicats and access the danger first. If the hijackers have control, then the airliner could be brought down.
George Bush gave two of the top the Air
Force generals permission to shoot down any hijacked plane presenting clear and
present danger to any city in America. How are Americans supposed to feel safe
about getting on a plane after the Sept. 11 attacks
and knowing that they could be shot down now. I mean
sure the airports have beefed up security BIG TIME but you can never make something 100% safe. So how are we supposed to be confident and fly again?
Either way you're screwed. Either the hijackers can kill you by ramming the plane into a building, or you can get shot down. Dead either way. Flying is still safer than driving a car though. So why worry about terrorists taking over a plane when the likely hood of that happening is remote at best.
Hmm... nothing in life is 100% except death. If you can't live with that, don't blame others.
Simple answer, If someone tries to take over your flight, fight them!!! If there were a few more Americans with the will to fight on each of those flights 9-11 would have been a sad day where we lost a few brave Americans rather than the day they sat in their seats and awaited death like sheep, taking thousands on the ground with them.
Stand up for yourself or die. No matter how much the NeoLibs say they will keep you safe, sometimes it comes down to you, and the resources you are carrying, to protect yourself. Your will is the first thing you need followed by a handy weapon. Any weapon. Just about anything hard, heavy, or sharp. When employed with a decisive will would likely proove sufficient. The hyjackers had box cutters and the will to use them. The key here is the WILL to use the weapon, what the weapon happens to be is somewhat secondary.
Let's not be critical of those that lost their lives on 9/11. The people on board the jets that crashed into the Twin Towers had no way of knowing that was going to be their fate. The pilots of the planes were killed as soon as the hijackers took over the cabin. If you were on board and rushed the hijackers successfully would you have been able to fly the plane successfully?
What is your problem with NeoLibs? They never said not to fight back or that their plans for safety were foolproof.
Obviously the NeoCons didn't keep 3,000 people from dying on 9/11, so if you are looking for blame perhaps you ought to start with them. They had some warning that bin Laden was going to strike in the U.S. and did nothing.
FBI agents met the plane when it landed in Seattle, and the individual was taken off the plane without incident,
SUBJECT as in a individual under the power of the King.
refreshing change from the usual banter of thr government crime dogs.
The war on terror isn't over folks.
Recently a child was kicked out of school because he made a gun out of his hand, could this be the same. I hope they got the person that made the call to the Fed's, because that person needs prison time. People are so stupid after 12 years of TSA,metal detectors,X-Ray scanners and body search's, you would think about trying to have a gun in your baggage. But according to the TSA they are still finding guns about 500 a year, this really scare's me that I may be the only person with common sense.
If you have as much common sense as you have grammar skills, that scares me!
Let me get this straight. An individual calls someone at the airport falsely reporting an individual excuting a terror plot and the feds use this tip as a probable cause to arrest and detain the named individual?
Sounds like justice to me. You know, the safety of hundreds of people is more important than the rights of a piece of individual.
Was it that detaining him and swiftly questioning him cheaper than monitering him until it's clear what he was up to?
I say sue the feds for emotional and professional damages (or whatever the creative parasitic blood sucking lawyers could come up with) and make it more expensive for the feds to do justice this way.
In the meantime americans need to stop bragging about the best justice system in the world.
That's the principle of tyranny because you can always argue that anything is for "safety" of others.
Well, it sounds like the call was made when the flight was already in progress, so exactly what kind of monitoring would you have liked and when would it have taken place?
Where is all of this "ex girlfriend" stuff is coming from? We will never know what happened, but taking someone off and questioning them in an aggressive manner......I agree better safe than sorry but if I was the passenger (assuming that they were innocent) I would mortified, frightened, angered, etc beyond words. Perhaps they saw the fighter jets and called it off......... but I would think that had this been a hijacking attempt that they would have gone for a bigger city such as LA etc. Im so thankful that everyone is alive, and I hope that if the passenger is truly innocent that they recover quickly.
I agree with detaining an individual named in a potential hijacking to ascertain if he/she was a real threat. Once determined it was a prank or a revenge plot, I would go after the one who made the call. They would serve jail time, pay restitution for the "extra" services used, and pay restitution to the person named unfairly. The only airline that person would be flying would be ConAir.
Why is he a potential hijacker? Because a random phone call said so?
That's all it takes.
The random phone call connected an individual with an airline and a flight, a date, and a time. After establishing a 100% accuracy with those connections the further assertion regarding the reason for the trip seems a prudent reason for an investigation in some detail.
The caller needs to be investigated as well and possible charges brought if it was a hoax.
If this guy was not armed he should not have been detained.
It seems Americans want it both ways...
someone calls and makes a seemingly false claim against another person and that person get sdetained.
but some think that is not fair and that since 9/11 the goverment has over stepped its bounds in safety, security, intelligence, etc...
So lets say that the person was going to carry out some plot to hijack a plane and decided to not go thru with it, I fly regularly and I want the government to protect me against all matters seen and unseen. More so I want GOD to protect me above all else.
So how do we do that, some times we have to go thru things that make us uncomfortable.... YES if it were me that got detained because my ex-wife or whoever wanted to put me in my place, after I cleared my name I would give the government every name possible of people who would do something like this.....
Oh... poor baby. You want the 2 big Gs to take care of all of your problems... you poor thing.
How about growing a pair? Next time it's going to be you that'll be detained and thrown in Guantanamo without a judge or jury!
Jimboza -The same thing could be said about a lot of people that want the big government to take care of them financially.
Did the FBI know it was a false claim when they took him off the plane. NO, after questioning him , they probably did.
Interesting...VERY interesting.
"According to Alaska Airlines officials, that individual slept through most of the flight"
I guess Achmed was tired.
What kind of a name is Achmed?
I believe he is a ventriloquist's dummy. Or it could be the other way around I've seen his act.
Dont ya think the FBI went to check out this person that made the call?? and get a feel of whats up along with a in person statement .. and make sure it was a prank.. plenty time a long flight like this one if the call was made early in the flight so im guessing there was reason for cause, cuz once that call was made, that individual and some close friends/family had their life/lives opened and subjected both ways, so there was no stipulations to prevent or hinder any instant investigations..
They would not be able to shoot that aircraft down until either they had the Presidents or next in charge premission or that airlcraft was within reach of doing harm, either not responding or would comply..
Im guessing it was a ticked off spouse or associate....
I don't like flying. But when I do, I want to get to my destination safely. I'd much rather they took a threat seriously than blew off something that possibly did happen and a plane full of people crashed.
Worry more about stupidity of people like you, rather than some phantom hijackers!
You're much more likely to die of stupidity than of hijacking.
Like the stupidy of gun laws?
You will die from one thing or another.
"Phantom Hijackers"?
We knew a few ot these.
They used box cutters and flew planes into the WTC towers.
KUDOS to Oregon ANG!!
Did my friend request work back at you? I was banished from the Kingdom when I replied, hope so. Have a great day.
And while no followup story was posted...the "detained" individual, having committed no crime whatsoever (other than actually flying on PALIN airways) will be quietly incarcerated in a FEDERAL prison for the REST OF HIS NATURAL LIFE...with no formal charges and no trial.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264345/Seattle-bound-flight-escorted-fighter-jets-caller-reports-sleeping-passenger-hijacker.html
you people need to watch this.......
Jimboza
You are such an ass. What is your solution to this situation?
You people who think it is alright for this individual to be detained are a bunch of idiots. I agree that to send up a fighter escort was the proper response. Also the flight crew should have been notified so they could be prepared to take action if needed. But when the flight landed and this individual had done nothing wrong, whoever it was, should have been able to go without interference.
It looks like to me, that we have people in our country who would have been great informers for the Gestapo and the GRU. In our country we should not be able to be detained because of a phone call. We are becoming closer to a police state when we allow or even condone these actions by the FBI. It was wrong for this individual to be detained. This individual should have been monitored from a distance and action only taken when it was clear that this individual was in the process of breaking the law. When has sleeping become against the law?
He was detained, interrogated for a couple of hours and released. Did law enforcement know WHO made the call, we don't know that, they probably got his story as to who might have called and continued their investigation.
If I made a call and reported that you were going to blow up a school. don't you think the law would be knocking down your door and take you in for questioning, even though you were doing nothing but watching tv or sleeping at that time?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264345/Seattle-bound-flight-escorted-fighter-jets-caller-reports-sleeping-passenger-hijacker.html
The same people who said they should not have detained and questioned the passenger and attempted to complete their investigation about who made the call...since the caller already knew the subject passenger was on the flight, and might be S/O or an associate of the passenger...are the same ones who criticized Bush for not connecting a bunch of unrelated dots prior to 9/11.