Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

New terrorist threats??? - the Air Marshals speak and tell a slightly different story

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

TIS

Wing, Nosewheel, Whatever
Joined
Dec 19, 2001
Posts
366
It seems there was a lot more to know about what went on aboard that NWA airplane than Ms. Jacobsen reported. It just goes to show ya that there's two sides to every story. She published and was paid for her's. The Air Marshals collected their salaries.

It also proves that she only saw what she was hoping she would find - a sensational story in which she was completely unprotected in a "dangerous" situation. Ms. Jacobsen didn't want to see or even imagine that anything could be going on beneath the surface where she could not see it in full view. That, because of its very nature, however, is how a war against covert terrorist activities MUST be fought.

TIS

The link: http://www.kfi640.com/ericleonard.html


The text:

AIR MARSHALS SAY PASSENGER OVERREACTED
By ERIC LEONARD
KFI NEWS

LOS ANGELES | July 22, 2004 – Undercover federal air marshals on board a June 29 Northwest airlines flight from Detroit to LAX identified themselves after a passenger, “overreacted,” to a group of middle-eastern men on board, federal officials and sources have told KFI NEWS.

The passenger, later identified as Annie Jacobsen, was in danger of panicking other passengers and creating a larger problem on the plane, according to a source close to the secretive federal protective service.

Jacobsen, a self-described freelance writer, has published two stories about her experience at womenswallstreet.com, a business advice web site designed for women.

“The lady was overreacting,” said the source. “A flight attendant was told to tell the passenger to calm down; that there were air marshals on the plane.”

The middle eastern men were identified by federal agents as a group of touring musicians travelling to a concert date at a casino, said Air Marshals spokesman Dave Adams.

Jacobsen wrote she became alarmed when the men made frequent trips to the lavatory, repeatedly opened and closed the overhead luggage compartments, and appeared to be signaling each other.

“Initially it was brought to [the air marshals] attention by a passenger,” Adams said, adding the agents had been watching the men and chose to stay undercover.

Jacobsen and her husband had a number of conversations with the flight attendants and gestured towards the men several times, the source said.

“In concert with the flight crew, the decision was made to keep [the men] under surveillance since no terrorist or criminal acts were being perpetrated aboard the aircraft; they didn’t interfere with the flight crew,” Adams said.

The air marshals did, however, check the bathrooms after the middle-eastern men had spent time inside, Adams said.

FBI agents met the plane when it landed in Los Angeles and the men were questioned, and Los Angeles field office spokeswoman Cathy Viray said it’s significant the alarm on the flight came from a passenger.

“We have to take all calls seriously, but the passenger was worried, not the flight crew or the federal air marshals,” she said. “The complaint did not stem from the flight crew.”

Several people were questioned, she said, but no one was detained.

Jacobsen’s husband Kevin told KFI NEWS he approached a man he thought was an air marshal after the flight had landed.

“You made me nervous,” Kevin said the air marshal told him.

“I was freaking out,” Kevin replied.

“We don’t freak out in situations like this,” the air marshal responded.

Federal agents later verified the musicians’ story.

“We followed up with the casino,” Adams said. A supervisor verified they were playing a concert. A second federal law enforcement source said the concert itself was monitored by an agent.

“We also went to the hotel, determined they had checked into the hotel,” Adams said. Each of the men were checked through a series of databases and watch-lists with negative results, he said.

The source said the air marshals on the flight were partially concerned Jacobsen’s actions could have been an effort by terrorists or attackers to create a disturbance on the plane to force the agents to identify themselves.

Air marshals’ only tactical advantage on a flight is their anonymity, the source said, and Jacobsen could have put the entire flight in danger.

“They have to be very cognizant of their surroundings,” spokesman Adams confirmed, “to make sure it isn’t a ruse to try and pull them out of their cover.”

KFI reporter Jessica Rosenthal contributed to this report.

Copyright 2004 KFI NEWS. All rights reserved.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't sound bogus to me. It sounds like exactly what I said on the thread someone deleted: Overzealous, hysterical racist who wanted to sell her story. Seems like the air marshals and the flight crew were not worried, except about the reported being a hysterical threat herself!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/skyterror.asp
 
"This whole episode points out that Democrats are racist paranoid freeks."
 
Hey Flying Freddie

I certainly hope you're NOT referring to ME when you allude to the possibility that MY post is a bogus attempt to find out how the air marshals function aboard aircraft involved in airline operations!

You see, if the intent of your response was to insinuate that the true motivation behind what I posted was to draw out commentary from informed individuals as to the exact nature and scope of security procedures currently in effect, for my own purposes, or in furtherence of some conspiratorial cause, your response is libelous and you could be taken to task for it. I'm going to suggest that you clarify your remarks substantially. It's just the right thing to do!

You need to take a look at the LINK. That's why I included it there in the body of my post! It takes you straight to the KFI (640AM in Los Angeles) website where THEIR reporters Eric Leonard and Jessica Rosenthal have posted their article.

Once again, here it is. GO LOOK AT IT THIS TIME!

http://www.kfi640.com/ericleonard.html

The purpose of my post was, and remains, to demonstrate that regardless of what this woman justifiably or unjustifiably believed was happening aboard that aircraft, when she "freaked out" SHE became the problem. When she then published her account without understanding the things that she SHOULD NOT be privvied to in the first place, she forced a key element of the aviation security system to tip its hand, if ever so slightly.

She is to be censured for that, not commended for her fine journalistic acumen!

The bottom line is that, like certain BBC reporters a few months back when the intelligence on the Iraq/Nigerian yellowcake uraninum connection was being questioned, SHE DIDN'T CHECK HER FACTS and, as a result got it mostly WRONG!

If I have mis-interpreted your remarks then I apologise for this rant but given what you said, you left me no choice but to defend myself - which I WILL do EVERY time.

TIS
 
I think it is a well known fact, that Federal Air Marshalls exist and that they may even on occassion be on airplanes. While I cannot be certain, even a particular group of people, who on occassion has a propensity for living in caves, might even be aware of such a tidbit of information.

Perhaps the woman overreacted, however, intelligence sources does indeed indicate, that the same "cave dwelling group" most certainly is doing homework
and may have done so on domestic flights.
 
This story just seems too sensationalized to not have been splashed all over the evening news! I think we'd have heard about this one on the 'ole tele don't you?
Andy
 
What I mean is that there are details of the story that are not correct. We as pilots have a responsibility to keep from letting details get on an open forum that all can see. That is all. I do not have any idea what happened during the flight. I bet there are truths and non-truths in both stories. Hope this clears that up.:confused:
 
TIS said:
I certainly hope you're NOT referring to ME when you allude to the possibility that MY post is a bogus attempt to find out how the air marshals function aboard aircraft involved in airline operations!

You see, if the intent of your response was to insinuate that the true motivation behind what I posted was to draw out commentary from informed individuals as to the exact nature and scope of security procedures currently in effect, for my own purposes, or in furtherence of some conspiratorial cause, your response is libelous and you could be taken to task for it. I'm going to suggest that you clarify your remarks substantially. It's just the right thing to do!

You need to take a look at the LINK. That's why I included it there in the body of my post! It takes you straight to the KFI (640AM in Los Angeles) website where THEIR reporters Eric Leonard and Jessica Rosenthal have posted their article.

Once again, here it is. GO LOOK AT IT THIS TIME!

http://www.kfi640.com/ericleonard.html

The purpose of my post was, and remains, to demonstrate that regardless of what this woman justifiably or unjustifiably believed was happening aboard that aircraft, when she "freaked out" SHE became the problem. When she then published her account without understanding the things that she SHOULD NOT be privvied to in the first place, she forced a key element of the aviation security system to tip its hand, if ever so slightly.

She is to be censured for that, not commended for her fine journalistic acumen!

The bottom line is that, like certain BBC reporters a few months back when the intelligence on the Iraq/Nigerian yellowcake uraninum connection was being questioned, SHE DIDN'T CHECK HER FACTS and, as a result got it mostly WRONG!

If I have mis-interpreted your remarks then I apologise for this rant but given what you said, you left me no choice but to defend myself - which I WILL do EVERY time.

TIS
Gee,

You must have mis-interpeted my remarks because they are not pointed at you in any way! Sometimes when a post is read without inflection of speech it may come across as something that it is not. Hope this clears up that!
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top