"Harry Krause" wrote in message

Rehashing old news stories again, Harry? Why? Where is the value-added?


One passenger said he "absolutely never heard the word 'bomb' at all"

The only thing that matters is what the marshall heard.

McAlhany, a 44-year-old construction worker who was returning home from a
fishing trip in Key West,

.....possibly still boozed up from all that "fishing" with his buds??

said he was sitting in Seat 21C when he noticed a commotion a few rows
back.

21C? About 1/2 to 2/3 of the way back in the plane. After the first few
words with Alpizar moving forward, nothing would be clear to McAlhany, even
assuming him to be clear-headed.


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

Did he listen to or hear the safety briefing? Did he hear the passenger
next to him complaining that his shirt stank? If you can speculate
irresponsibly, then so can I.


Notice the new element? That the word "bomb" didn't come up until the dead
man was out of the plane, away from independent witnesses, and only within
earshot of the marshals who shot him?

Harry, they have medication now for paranoia. Ask your wife the doctor.

How very interesting.

There is a possibility that the guy never mentioned the word "bomb" at
all,

Possibility? Maybe. Two uninvolved persons, who were trying to figure out
what was going on, think that they *didn't* hear a particular word spoken
when at least three and possibly more persons were shouting things at each
other. And there was also, at the decision time, the possibility that he
did have a bomb and was reaching for it. The marshall had to make an
instantaneous decision on the protection of rights and well-being of the
greatest number of people. He made the right decision.

JohnG,
I hate to admit it, but I DIDN'T HEAR HIM SAY THE WORD BOMB EITHER.

Oh my gosh, the marshals must have killed the son of a bitch because they
didn't like him.

Now I ask you, did you hear him say the word bomb?


"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

Rehashing old news stories again, Harry? Why? Where is the value-added?


One passenger said he "absolutely never heard the word 'bomb' at all"

The only thing that matters is what the marshall heard.

McAlhany, a 44-year-old construction worker who was returning home from a
fishing trip in Key West,

....possibly still boozed up from all that "fishing" with his buds??

said he was sitting in Seat 21C when he noticed a commotion a few rows
back.

21C? About 1/2 to 2/3 of the way back in the plane. After the first few
words with Alpizar moving forward, nothing would be clear to McAlhany,
even assuming him to be clear-headed.


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

Did he listen to or hear the safety briefing? Did he hear the passenger
next to him complaining that his shirt stank? If you can speculate
irresponsibly, then so can I.


Notice the new element? That the word "bomb" didn't come up until the
dead man was out of the plane, away from independent witnesses, and only
within earshot of the marshals who shot him?

Harry, they have medication now for paranoia. Ask your wife the doctor.

How very interesting.

There is a possibility that the guy never mentioned the word "bomb" at
all,

Possibility? Maybe. Two uninvolved persons, who were trying to figure
out what was going on, think that they *didn't* hear a particular word
spoken when at least three and possibly more persons were shouting things
at each other. And there was also, at the decision time, the possibility
that he did have a bomb and was reaching for it. The marshall had to make
an instantaneous decision on the protection of rights and well-being of
the greatest number of people. He made the right decision.

John Gaquin wrote:

One passenger said he "absolutely never heard the word 'bomb' at all"

The only thing that matters is what the marshall heard.

Bull! Odds are the marshall will lie about what he heard and saw. The
independent witnesses word carries more weight. Look at the history of
these sad cases.

--
Skipper

"Skipper" wrote in message

...... The
independent witnesses word carries more weight. Look at the history of
these sad cases.

yes, you ought to. Independent, uninvolved witnesses usually don't know who
the players are, what they're hearing or seeing, or even what the hell is
going on in the first place. Doesn't matter whether you're talking about a
shooting, a car crash, or an aircraft crash. Interview enough "independent"
witnesses, and you'll eventually hear what you want to hear. 50
witnesses -- 50 "facts". happens all the time in aviation disasters.