Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hunt What Boeing?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 07:44 PM
Original message
Hunt What Boeing?
If you search for AA 11 or AA 77 on different days, you will find that they were regularly scheduled flights
right up to Sept 10. AA 11 was scheduled daily from Logan to LA at 8.00, and AA 77 from Dulles to LA at
7.45. On Sept 11, they were not scheduled. Not cancelled. Just not scheduled.
On Sept 12, they re-appear in the schedule (obviously as cancelled for the next few days) up until Sept 20
when both flights change their numbers.

Thus the official figures from the Bureau of Transportation statistics indicate that neither AA 11 nor AA 77
flew on Sept, 11 2001. This solves the question of what happened to them. Nothing. Because the flights did
not exist. This is consistent with other evidence which shows that they were not the objects responsible for
the Pentagon and Nth WTC tower incidents.
http://sydney.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=36354&group=webcast
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Demonaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. So what
hit the towers??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. That is for them to know
and us to find out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. Wow! I wonder what "phantom" airplanes those people boarded, then...
Geez, isn't it obvious that (assuming this story is accurate) the records were changed for some reason? If what you're suggesting is true, what flights did those people board? What flights did ATC talk to?

:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-03 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
18. They are with Elvis now
Return to sender, address unknown.
No such person, no such zone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
4. This is not here
Another intriguing discovery by wherdy go's most aggressive pursuer.

Thanks, DD. I don't know how you do it; but I'm glad that you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Archae Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
5. Yeah right.
And the landings on the Moon were faked too, right?

Serious off-the-deep-end :tinfoilhat: bullcrap.

Oh yeah, all the hundreds of witnesses were all paid off, the security tapes from the Pentagon parking lots were faked, etc, etc.

PT Barnum understated his point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Aha
someone who actually DID have a look!!!

What do you think of that vicious rumor that Gore won the 2000 election?
Or that other story about how Diebold is rigging the voting machines?

PT Barnum didn't know the half of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frodo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
7. Gullibility that baffles the imagination
They got hundreds of people (the interviewed relatives of all the people who had tickets for that flight who don't exist any longer) to participate in a massive coverup/deception that has completely defied detection but they aren't smart enough to change a public website that had obvioulsy been modified anyway for the other flights?

They could manage all of that but they couldn't just pull a jumbo jet out of mothballs and fly it into the pentagon themselves?


Are there scores of "victims" actually alive somewhere? Or were hundreds of reletives of people killed (under other circumstances) somehow convinced that they were ON those planes even though none of them had plans to fly that day?


There is a difference between "conspiracy theory" ang "going off your medication" and they seem to have crossed that particular line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Ask youself this -
Why is the White House stone walling on any and all investigations into 9/11? Even this commission has been hog tied by lack of funds. Why has there been no forensic investigation into the material removed from the tower site? Why was most of the steel sold over seas ASAP, thereby preventing inspection for evidence for why/how the towers collapsed?

So why couldn't this scenario be accurate? It fits better than the official verson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-03 05:29 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. Governmental instutitions

stonewall from force of habit,

especially when under pressure.

Evasions of responsibility save a lot of time and trouble.

Before complaining that something was not done it also helps to be sure that somebody was expressly charged to perform the task. You'll otherwise tend to be whistling in the dark.

They may be more to it that but is there not already far too much over imaginative speculation passed of as known fact?

Persistent indulgences of 'X file' fantasies only serve to discredit more serious concerns.

Please beware also of logical contradictions. It is no good to complain that information has not been released while also presuming to come to a conclusion. The logical result of being short of information is to be unable to come to a conclusion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frodo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-03 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. Simple
Why are they stonewalling?

Because even if the entire "official story" is true, the investigation could turn up severl embarrasing and politically damaging realities about our intelligence system and the Bush administration's mistakes leading up to 9/11.

Can you give me a link for the "steel sold over seas ASAP"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HarryLime Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-14-03 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. steel removed before inspection
"Can you give me a link for the 'steel sold over seas ASAP'?"

Check the first chapter of Eric Hufschmid's 'Painful Questions'. His report comes from the New York Times and other sources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I am sorry, I was confused
by the hijackers who are STILL ALIVE.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Calling a PART of an arguement into question is perfectly reasonable.
People get the "tinfoil hat" brand when they attempt to use that one disproved part as de facto "evidence" that other parts of the arguement (even the very reasonable ones) are false. I don't think the government is telling us anything even close to the truth. However, there ARE parts of the "official story" that are most probably completely true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-03 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. Right on.
Pride comes before a fall.

It is all about an unwillingness to be wrong.

It begins when an expectation fails to fit a report. The first instinct is then to doubt the report, and on it then goes. When another explanation then appears to be possible, it is therefore assumed to have been the case as a matter of fact, while the alternative possibility is stubbornly forgotten: The expectation was wrong to begin with.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-03 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. True lies
Let us see if I got this right
You trust a Dick that is peeking out from behind a Bush?
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/11/ar911.king.cheney/
Methinks that how one gets screwed.

http://www.drsusanblockinstitute.com/MyOwn.htm
Now isn't THAT the truth?

What do you mean "disproved?"
What do you mean "very reasonable ones?"

You remind me of the lady whose husband returned from a two-year voyage to find she had just given birth.
"But it is only a VERY SMALL baby," she said in her defense.

Well folks, a baby is a baby
and even a "reasonable part" of a lie is still part of a lie.
In court one promises to
tell the truth
the WHOLE truth and
NOTHING BUT the truth.
Anything ADDED or SUBRACTED turns the testimony into A LIE.
And that's is when we ALL get screwed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-03 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. And on THAT note, I give up. Do you HEAR yourself?
You're completely rambling, you don't really make sense...

...and you scare me a little...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-03 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. There's been something
ever more desperate and irrational about her recent posts.

One can but wonder how it would ever come to an end.

:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-14-03 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. Back to the personal attacks
I see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-14-03 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Deleted message

like
"see you are back to handing out your calling card.
What is it with you Feds?"?

What hypocritally vile little shit you are.

Adieu.

I have had more than enough of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-16-03 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. A gentleman
always keeps his word.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-14-03 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. I'll ask the question again.
In post#11 MercutioATC said:
People get the "tinfoil hat" brand when they attempt to use that one disproved part as de facto "evidence" that other parts of the arguement (even the very reasonable ones) are false. I don't think the government is telling us anything even close to the truth. However, there ARE parts of the "official story" that are most probably completely true.

What do you mean "disproved?"
What do you mean "very reasonable ones?"
Which part is "most probably completely true?"

So far I have narrowed it down to the WTC collapse and a goat story.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-03 05:38 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. You confuse yourself.
let alone anybody else.

There is no question of the given suspects being alive after Septemeber 11th 2001. There was never the slightest reason to suppose that persons elsewhere, albeit with similar identities, were aboard the planes or anywhere near to the US in September 2001, nor had they purchased any tickets or reservations to be aboard the lost aircraft.

The persistent repetition of this 'hijackers still alive' spin is irresponsibly deceptive.

Why do you do it?

:spank:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-03 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. The hijackers I am talking about
are the people whose names and faces are STILL POSTED up on the FBI website.
The hijackers I am talking about are the Saudis who claim to be the owners of said names and faces posted up on the FBI website.

And those particular Saudis are still alive.
Those are "hijackers" who are STILL ALIVE.

What part did you not understand?

Or are you accusing the BBC of holding seances?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

If Mueller is talking about OTHER hijackers,
then why are these particular names and photos
STILL UP ON THE FBI WEBSITE?
And why should we then believe ANYTHING that the FBI has to say concerning September 11?

RH, old boy,
I see you are back to handing out your calling card.
:spank:
What is it with you Feds?
http://www.salon.com/health/col/vitz/1999/11/30/blackrose1/print.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-03 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Frodo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-03 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. That confusion is something you should have checked out
if you've been talking to dead people.


They been giving a lot of interviews?

Or maybe they have been giving highschool comencement addresses in Nebraska and the SS has forgotten to delete all the web records of their remarks?

Actually, what you don't realize is that 9/11 was not what it seemed. It was the third in a series of mass-hypnosis experiments by the REAL world goverment to test how to work the aliens into our culture. You see there NEVER WAS A WTC. It never existed.

And you've all fallen for the cover story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-03 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. Nah.
I just want to know WHO sold those tickets for a flight that was not sceduled to fly.
And then I want to know HOW those passengers boarded a plane that wasn't there.
And then I want to know WHY the air traffic control people allowed these non-existent planes to take off.

In other words,
I want to know WHAT the FAA was doing on the morning of September 11, 2001.
Especially that Scott Brenner.

That'll clear up my confusion jes fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-14-03 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #7
28. do you know any of those people?
do you know anyone who knows any of those people?

don't believe everything you see on TV.

(Or read on DU! :-) )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispy Donating Member (148 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
10. Holmgren?
Edited on Wed Nov-12-03 11:35 PM by crispy
Holmgren, the author of that piece, isn't the most reliable source in the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-03 05:13 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Source?

Holmgren is not a source.

His persistent intention is to negate sources, to create doubts, to cause confusion.

He never even attempts to communicate with those whose information he is so remarkably keen to denigrate.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispy Donating Member (148 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-03 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. Source
Source as in the origin of much faulty logic and pseudo-calculations
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-03 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. And
he publishes no apology nor any retraction or correction when shown to be plainly wrong, e.g. with regard to some simple facts about the architecture of the Pentagon or the reality of witnesses he'd supposed were non existent.

What a cheek he has then to continually cast aspersions to impugn others integrity!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-14-03 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Clarify
"What a cheek he has then to continually cast aspersions to impugn others integrity! "

Pray tell what aspersions he has cast upon this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #29
35. The fact of Flight 11 & Flight 77 being scheduled
was reported severally elsewhere.

Tickets were sold for the flights.

How would one propose to explain that then, pray tell, without casting aspersions to impugn the integrity of those who had made it be known?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Tickets were sold for HUNDREDS
of flights scheduled to leave on September 11
and September 12
and September 13, 2001.

And in VERY MANY instances, on September 11,
the passengers and baggage were actually checked in.
And they all got right back off that plane.

The fact that a ticket was sold meant NOTHING on that day,
and it means NOTHING to most of us today.

Go rent the movie "Get Shorty."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Got right back off which plane?
Many flights were certainly not completed.

So what?

Is that supposed to help to explain how a ticket would be sold for an unscheduled flight?

:freak:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
34. A simple explanation:
Suppose for a moment that under the auspices of American Airlines the person usually responsible for returning, in the first instance, the data for the BTS database was the pilot who had actually flown the plane.

Is that a reasonable hypothesis? :think:

Suppose then that being deceased the pilot thus in question may have been somehow hindered from performing the task on 9/11/01.

Is that a reasonable proposition? :think:

Do the facts fit? :think:

Would that also possibly explain why there would also appear to be no record of the moot aircraft (N334AA) arriving at Boston after taking off from San Fransisco the night before?
:think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. That does not fly.
Your explanation implies that
American Airlines is in material breach of federal law,
namely Title 49 of the U.S. Code (Transportation)
with particular reference to Section 111.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/111.html
See also:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/14cfr249_00.html

The airlines required to report to the BTS in 2002 include:
America West Airlines
American Airlines
American Eagle Airlines
Continental Airlines
Delta Air Lines
ExpressJet Airlines
Northwest Airlines
SkyWest Airlines
United Airlines
US Airways

The rule requires carriers to report on operations to and from the 31 U.S. airports that account for at least 1 percent of the nation's total domestic scheduled-service passenger enplanements. However, all reporting airlines have voluntarily provided data for their entire domestic systems.
The 31 reportable airports include:
Boston: Logan International (BOS)
Los Angeles: International (LAX)
Newark: Liberty International (EWR)
San Francisco: International (SFO)
(Dulles is not on this list.)
Arrival performance is based on arrival at the gate. Departure performance is based on departure from the gate.
Airlines have reported on-time performance to the U.S. Department of Transportation since 1987. Reporting was modified in 1995 to include reporting of mechanical delays, which had not been included in the original rule.
See:
http://www.bts.gov/help/aviation.html

Please also recall that airports,
unlike car parks,
work on a very tight schedule.

The planes must be checked and refueled and loaded with passengers and cargo, and then cleared for takeoff on an available runway according to the flight-plan filed with the FAA.
This means that if a plane is NOT where it is supposed to be, then EVERYONE has a headache.
It took quite some time after the ground stop of September 11, for the WORLDWIDE aircraft fleet to get back on track.
A commercial plane CANNOT simply just take-off or land any old time it wants to.

Furthermore, the gate that it pulls up to has to belong either to itself, or to one of it's code-share partners - who has agreed to make said gate available to said airline and said flight at said time.

Also, ALL the code-share anti-trust agreements specify that code-share partners CANNOT switch planes with each other.
In other words, if Air Canada is the code-share partner supposed to fly you into Vancouver, then that is it. Qantas CANNOT just put one of their planes on that route for today. If Air Canada has a pilot strike, then that is just too darn bad. Enjoy your stop-over wherever it that you are stranded. The other code-share partners are FORBIDDEN to fly Air Canada's routes. That is the whole point of code-share -everyone has their own "turf."

The "turf" at Logan Airport has a SPECIFIC OWNER and that specific owner did NOT use THAT GATE for THEIR OWN FLIGHT at that that particular time.
So who did?
And under what authority?
And what happened to the passengers, if any?

Note that if you don't show up at the gate 15 minutes before departure, the airline can involuntarily bump you and not owe you anything.
http://www.pacificislandtravel.com/airlines/airfares/gettingbumped.asp

If the airplane should crash and you die, the airline won't have your real name (which can affect life insurance policies), and this is just plain unethical. Moreover, your legal rights are extended only to the person named on the ticket (or their estate), so in the event of a loss or claim against the carrier, you will have no legal recourse whatsoever.
http://www.pacificislandtravel.com/airlines/airfares/buyingsomeonesticket.asp

With a per passenger fatality liability cost of US$3 million and hull values of up to US$150 million per wide-body, a single major event could cost several billion or many times the worldwide annual premium.
http://airlinesgate.free.fr/articles/insurance.htm

Up until now the insurance industry had not considered a terrorist attack likely enough to require an exclusion clause in its policies as standard. Even where such a clause had been included, the policy price was not high enough to cover the cost of claims leaving insurers with little choice but to pay out from their reserves, raising fears they could run into financial difficulties.
As a result, the US industry wants the Bush government to protect it from any future claims and has modeled its proposal on the Pool Re system built in Britain 10 years ago after IRA attacks in the City.
The system puts all the liabilities on the government for insurance claims following acts of terrorism.
But it emerged yesterday that the Bush administration may be offering the industry another option which would only run until 2004. Under the plan, which is still being constructed, the government would share the cost on an upwardly rising scale depending on the size of the claims.
It is thought that the US is discussing financing 80% of any claims of less than $20bn and 90% of any higher claims. Under this, its responsibility would end entirely in 2004.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,575551,00.html

This notion has been especially raised with regard to United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11 which crashed into the World Trade Center towers. These carriers have been sued by most plaintiffs -- American, United and US Airways -- because they cleared two hijackers through security in Portland, Maine to board a Colgan Air flight to Boston, Logan.
http://www.planesafe.org/latest.htm

Colgan Air is a US Airways code-share partner.
http://www.colganair.com/
http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/1999/12/06/daily24.html

Through September 2003, US Airways has placed its code on more than 1,600 United flights operating to over 80 cities, and United is code sharing on nearly 1,300 US Airways flights to over 90 destinations. Other phases continue to be implemented, adding new destinations for customers of both carriers.
http://www.usairways.com/about/codeshare/us_ua_faq.htm

It has been widely reported that each of the hijacked flights had insurance coverage of at least 1½ billion dollars. Each flight had several policies. (See the lists.) Part of this insurance is specifically reserved for the passengers’ benefits.
<snip>
In point of fact, United Airlines filed for bankruptcy in Chicago on December 9, 2002 without having paid one dime in actual claims to September 11 victims.
US Airways filed for bankruptcy in Alexandria, Virginia on August 11, 2002 without having paid one dime to September 11 victims.
American Airlines (after its smaller insurance policies on Flights 11 and 77 paid out $28,735.63 and $42,372.88, respectively) has also been considering bankruptcy.
These two airlines’ bankruptcies and American’s financial plight, have been brought about, not by any September 11 victim’s lawsuit, but by the arguably excessive salaries and "bonuses" paid to its management for poorly managing the airlines and for helping to bring about the large downturn in air travel by having failed to protect their passengers from hijacking and sabotage as the law required. And this in spite of both United and American having received their share of the 10 billion dollars of taxpayer money paid to airlines in the above "bailout bill." The U.S. Congress is currently considering additional bailout bills.
http://www.planesafe.org/latest.htm

This is why code-share is so very important.

Thursday, June 14, 2001
McGee has said if the Bush administration succeeds in cutting the air service subsidies, Colgan Air would end flights to and from Augusta. The airline runs four round trips each weekday to Boston.
Altogether, about 80 rural airports take advantage of the air service subsidies, which started about 20 years ago when the airline industry was deregulated. At the time, members of Congress were concerned that airlines would abandon small airports without financial assistance because operating profits would be slim or nonexistent.
http://homes.mainetoday.com/moving/regions/counties/kennebec/010614augustaair.shtml

October 30, 2003
A 19-seat propeller plane operated by US Air Express had flown from Knox County Regional Airport to Boston's Logan International Airport and discharged its passengers Tuesday afternoon when a new flight crew began inspecting the cabin.
The crew found a retractable-blade utility knife in a seatback pocket and a single-edged razor blade under a seat a few rows away, according to the Transportation Security Administration.
http://snowe.senate.gov/articles/art103003_1.htm
Things change. Things stay the same.

Colgan Air operates leased Saabs,
and we know for a fact that it was at Logan Airport on September 11, 2001.
http://www.colganair.com/aircraft.htm
For Colgan Air Logan Check In:
See US Airlines Express- Terminal B
http://www.colganair.com/routes.htm

Following is a transcript of the radio communications of American Airlines Flight 11 (AAL11) and United Air Lines Flight 175, which took off from Logan International Airport in Boston and then were crashed into the World Trade Center. The transcripts were obtained by The New York Times.
7:45:48 -- Ground Control 1: American eleven heavy boston ground gate thirty two you're going to wait for a Saab to go by then push back.
7:45:58 -- AAL11: After the Saab cleared to push, and we're gonna need four right today, American eleven heavy.
7:46:09 -- Ground Control 1: American eleven heavy uh understand you need alpha roger. Push back after the Saab is approved.

Whose Saab was that?
Surely those two guys did NOT miss their flight.

The suspected ringleader of last week's terrorist assault came close to missing his American Airlines flight out of Boston and showed up at the gate perspiring, says an American Airlines employee at Logan International Airport.
The gate agent who checked in Mohamed Atta and gave him his boarding pass told the FBI that she remembers him showing up for Flight 11 late, his face covered with sweat, the source says.
"The girl that checked Atta said he was sweating bullets, that he was running late," the employee said. "His forehead was drenched."
<snip>
Atta, 33, then rushed to the security checkpoint and down the concourse – about a five-minute jog – to the gate, where he showed up perspiring, the source says. HE SHOWED UP ALONE, THE FOUR OTHER TERRORISTS HAVING CHECKED IN EARLIER.
Flight 11 left the gate at 7:45 a.m. It hit the north tower of the World Trade Center at 8:48 a.m.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24596

How did Abdulaziz Alomari get checked in BEFORE Atta?
Do tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. ????
"Your explanation implies that
American Airlines is in material breach of federal law"


Perhaps it does. So what?

"Please also recall that airports,
unlike car parks, work on a very tight schedule."


Yes, indeed. So what has got to do with it?

"Furthermore, the gate that it pulls up to has to belong either to itself, or to one of it's code-share partners - who has agreed to make said gate available to said airline and said flight at said time.

According to what? What sunstantiates that assumption? What should prevents an owner from allowing a gate to whosoever would please?

It is not already established that American Airlines use both gate 26 and gate 32 at Terminal B?

It has been widely reported that each of the hijacked flights had
insurance coverage of at least 1½ billion dollars. Each flight had several policies. (See the lists.) Part of this insurance is specifically reserved for the passengers’ benefits.


So what?

Things change. Things stay the same."

So...?

Whose Saab was that?

Why should we care? How is this supposed to relate to how the flight data would be reported.

Surely those two guys did NOT miss their flight.

Which two guys?

How did Abdulaziz Alomari get checked in BEFORE Atta?

Perhaps by arriving before Atta.

What has that has that got do with anything?

What has any of that got to do with how the flight data would be reported?

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. Let's try again.
Let us please take it one bit at a time and try to stick to the logic of the argument.

Part one:

Suppose for a moment that under the auspices of American Airlines the person usually responsible for returning, in the first instance, the data for the BTS database was the pilot who had actually flown the plane.

Is that a reasonable hypothesis?

Yes or No?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. No
It is NOT a reasonable hypothesis.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #41
43. Why not then, please?

The required data includes for instance:

Actual departure time, Actual elapsed time, Departure delay,
Wheels-off time, Taxi-out time, Scheduled arrival time, Actual arrival time, Scheduled elapsed time, Actual elapsed time, Arrival delay, Wheels-on time, Taxi-in time.


Given that the Airline (not e.g. ATC) has to supply the data, who other the pilot would be better placed to do so in the first instance?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. I thought
that the pilot was supposed to be FLYING the plane.
Surely THAT requires some concentration.
Surely we prefer that he occupy himslef with THAT task,
rather than with data entry and secretarial work.

The data required by the BTS is extensive.
RH, YOU are the ONLY entity that has EVER suggested that
compiling it and submitting it to the BTS
is something that ought to be done by the pilot.

Flight 11 was not the first plane ever to crash, and neither was Flight 77.
In all other instances, data has been collected, submitted and analyzed with or without the input of a pilot who may very well be deceased.
That is why they have Black Boxes.

Oh dear, I forgot.
THEY NEVER FOUND THE BLACK BOX FOR FLIGHT 11.
THE BLACK BOX FROM FLIGHT 77 WAS TOO BADLY DAMAGED
(unlike the arm of a certain stewardess)
TO BE OF USE.
http://911review.org/Wiki/Flight77BlackBoxes.shtml
Not bad for a crash that registered squat on seismic monitors.
The Mother Of All Walls is something else again.

However, BTS data is missing.
This is in violation of federal statute.
That data MUST be filed.
Wars have been started because of that flight.
We,
the taxpayers who pay the BTS,
Congress, and the pResident's salaries,
DEMAND answers.
WHY the exception in this case?
What REALLY happened?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Your question is answered below.
However, BTS data is missing.
This is in violation of federal statute.
That data MUST be filed.
Wars have been started because of that flight.
We,
the taxpayers who pay the BTS,
Congress, and the pResident's salaries,
DEMAND answers.
WHY the exception in this case?


I wrote the BT about the missing data. They replied that American never filed it, and at this late date a decision was made not to pursue the data.

If you have any further questions, they provided an 800 number to call. It's listed on the post below. I await the report of your phone conversation with interest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. I did not suggest
that the pilot should do any secretarial work.

I suggested that the pilot may be "responsible for returning ... the data"

Nor did I suggest that this ought to be case. I suggested that as a matter fact it may have been the case.

How much of a modern flight do you think is conducted on auto pilot?

My understanding is that that during a flight the returning of various sorts of data is already anyway the responsibility of a pilot.

As to "THE BLACK BOX FROM FLIGHT 77 WAS TOO BADLY DAMAGED
(unlike the arm of a certain stewardess) TO BE OF USE."
I am astounded.

From the page link you supplied:

"FBI Director Robert Mueller said Flight 77's data recorder provided altitude, speed, headings and other information.."

The black box would also at least have positively identifed the aircraft, would it not?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 05:57 AM
Response to Original message
42. Flight 77 mentioned at the BTS website
Evidently, Flight 77 did actually fly on September 11th.

http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2002/bts022_02.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
44. "Dear Mr. Boffin: American Airlines did not report the data..."
The BTS website has a page for feedback. I used it to ask them about this discrepancy in flight information. This is what they wrote back:

Dear Mr. Boffin:

American Airlines did not report the data for flights 11 and 77 on September 11th, 2001. United Airlines did report their hijacked flights. Our Office of Airline Information has decided not to require American Airlines to submit the data on the two hijacked flights at this late date. Standard procedure is that all flights are included in the airlines submission but an exception was made in this case.

If you have any further questions, please call us at (800) 853-1351.

Sincerely,

Information Service Staff
National Transportation Library
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
U.S. Department of Transportation


How about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. Ecclesiastes 1:15
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Ecclesiastes 6:11
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. Amen
There was no Boeing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. ...and amen.
Edited on Thu Jan-22-04 02:54 PM by boloboffin
You are incorrect.

On edit: Wait. That was a conclusion.

Dulce, you reached a conclusion.

There was no Boeing.

I'm so proud of you. It's the wrong conclusion, entirely unwarranted and disallowed by the evidence, but still it's a step in the right direction for you.

It's a red letter day here in the 9/11 Forum. Dulce took a stand! She made a conclusion! I'm just so proud...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC