AA 11: Still looking for a definite flight manifest

[John Doe II]

I'd like to take up the discussion on the flight manifest of AA11 and hope that everybody can try to simply discuss facts and refrain from personal comments...

I'm still wondering how it come that seven media accounts come to six different passenger lists.
http://www.indymedia.be/news/2004/05/84711.php

Putting all the names on the lists together as Holmgren did one comes to the conclusion that there are too many names: 8! (taking the offical passenger number of 92 for granted):
So how is this possible?
Or in other words: Is US Army Sergeant Waleed Iskander, 34, really dead, did he ever exist, is he still alive?

Why do the journalists have so much trouble figuring out who was a passenger and what would be the defintie flight manifest? Why is there is troubling parallel to the FBI who right after 911 had a completely wrong suspicion against Adnan and Ameer Bukhari, Abdul Rahman Al Omari and Ameer Kamfar. What is so difficult about reading a flight manifest?

[genius]

1. The obvious answer it that the passenger list was faked

The fewer the real passengers the fewer the witnesses to what really happened.

[RH]

3. Obvious?

Why would a faked manifest be any more confused than a real one?

:shrug:

[John Doe II]

4. Well

Do you know what are the 92 definite names and if Waleed Iskander died aboard AA 11?

[RH]

7. Are you still missing the point?

Real life is more confused than fiction, not less.

[John Doe II]

11. The point

Are you still missing the point?"

Sorry, RH, but I'm afraid you still haven't made a point!

Let's check out your answer:

John Doe II asks:
Do you know what are the 92 definite names?

RH answers:
Real life is more confused than fiction, not less.

I'm sorry, RH, was all respect but your answer makes logicallly absolutely no sense.

To my question logically you can only answer:
a.) Yes, I do (then I'd be happy if you could provide me with 92 names)
b.) No, I don't.
c.) I know a part of the names (Then I'd expect you to list the names you're sure of).

John Doe II asks:
Do you know if Waleed Iskander died aboard AA 11?

RH answers:
Real life is more confused than fiction, not less.

Hm, this makes logically no sense neither!

To my question you can only answer:
a.) Yes, I know that he died (explication for this assumption would be appreciated)
b.) No, I don't know if he died or not.
c.) I know that he didn't die (explication for this assumption would be appreciated)
d.) I know that this name is fictious. (explication for this assumption would be appreciated).

So, please, before wondering about the state of my analytical skills maybe it would help me to get the point if you actually make a point!

[RH]

12. Who makes the rules around here?

You completely ignored my question.

Why would a faked manifest be any more confused than a real one?

[John Doe II]

13. Fake/real

I didn't state that the passenger manifest was faked.
I didn't make any judgement.

So if you have a look at the first post which is the first question of this thread then please answer it:
What are the 92 names?
Is Waleed Iskander dead aboard AA11?

[RH]

14. You are still completely mising the point

before anybody wants to spend any time on Waleed Iskander you have to convince them that Waleed Iskander is worth the trouble.

[John Doe II]

18. Funny logic

Avoiding to answer (and still you have refused several times yet to give me any explanation for reproaching me that I should just once in a while answer your questions. If you reproach me I think it's only fair to hint just at a single question I haven't tried to answer!)
Anyway.
My questions are very clear and I'm very surprised that all of a sudden I must convince anybody that my question is worth being asked?!

Many lists have the name of US Army Sergeant Waleed Iskander/Iskandar (see Fanny's finding) yet many lists that give 92 or more names fail to mention him. Is this reason enough for you to bother if he died aboard?

If you have a problem with the name:
Here the general version of my question:

92 have officially been aboard AA 11.
What are their names?

[Make7]

21. Their names are:

CREW
Barbara Arestegui, 38, Marstons Mills, Massachusetts
Jeffrey Collman, 41, Novato, Calif.
Sara Low, 28, Batesville, Arkansas
Karen A. Martin, 40, Danvers, Mass.
First Officer Thomas McGuinness, 42, Portsmouth, New Hampshire
Kathleen Nicosia, 54, Winthrop, Mass.
John Ogonowski, 52, Dracut, Massachusetts
Betty Ong, 45, Andover, Massachusetts
Jean Roger, 24, Longmeadow, Massachusetts
Dianne Snyder, 42, Westport, Massachusetts
Madeline Sweeney, 35, Acton, Massachusetts

PASSENGERS
Anna Williams Allison, 48, Stoneham, Massachusetts
David Angell, 54, Pasadena, California
Lynn Angell, 45, Pasadena, California
Seima Aoyama, 48, Culver City, Calif.
Myra Aronson, 52, Charlestown, Massachusetts
Christine Barbuto, 32, Brookline, Massachusetts
Carolyn Beug, 48, Los Angeles, California
Kelly Ann Booms, 24, Brookline, Mass.
Carol Bouchard, 43, Warwick, Rhode Island
Neilie Anne Heffernan Casey, 32, Wellesley, Massachusetts
Jeffrey Coombs, 42, Abington, Massachusetts
Tara Creamer, 30, Worcester, Massachusetts
Thelma Cuccinello, 71, Wilmot, New Hampshire
Patrick Currivan, 52, Winchester, Mass.
Brian Dale, 43, Warren, New Jersey
David DiMeglio, 22, Wakefield, Mass.
Donald Americo DiTullio, 49, Peabody, Mass.
Albert Dominguez, 66, Sydney, Australia
Paige Farley-Hackel, 46, Newton, Mass.
Alex Filipov, 70, Concord, Massachusetts
Carol Flyzik, 40, Plaistow, N.H.
Paul Friedman, 45, Belmont, Massachusetts
Karleton D.B. Fyfe, 31, Brookline, Massachusetts
Peter Gay, 54, Tewksbury, Massachusetts
Linda George, 27, Westboro, Massachusetts
Edmund Glazer, 41, Los Angeles, California
Lisa Fenn Gordenstein, 41, Needham, Massachusetts
Andrew Peter Charles Curry Green, 34, Santa Monica, Calif.
Peter Hashem, 40, Tewksbury, Massachusetts
Robert Hayes, 37, from Amesbury, Massachusetts
Edward (Ted) R. Hennessy, 35, Belmont, Mass.
John A. Hofer, 45, Los Angeles, Calif.
Cora Hidalgo Holland, 52, of Sudbury, Massachusetts
Nicholas Humber, 60, of Newton, Massachusetts
Waleed Iskandar, 34, London, England (ObituaryRegistry.com)
John Charles Jenkins, 45, Cambridge, Mass.
Charles Edward Jones, 48, Bedford, Mass.
Robin Kaplan, 33, Westboro, Massachusetts
Barbara Keating, 72, Palm Springs, Calif.
David P. Kovalcin, 42, Hudson, New Hampshire
Judy Larocque, 50, Framingham, Mass.
Natalie Janis Lasden, 46, Peabody, Mass.
Daniel John Lee, 34, Van Nuys, Calif.
Daniel C. Lewin, 31, Charlestown, Mass.
Susan A. MacKay, 44, Westford, Massachusetts
Christopher D. Mello, 25, Boston, Mass.
Jeff Mladenik, 43, Hinsdale, Illinois
Antonio Jesus Montoya Valdes, 46, East Boston, Mass.
Carlos Alberto Montoya, 36, Bellmont, Mass.
Laura Lee Morabito, 34, Framingham, Massachusetts
Mildred Rose Naiman, 81, Andover, Mass.
Laurie Ann Neira, 48, Los Angeles, Calif.
Renee Newell, 37, of Cranston, Rhode Island
Jacqueline J. Norton, 61, Lubec, Maine
Robert Grant Norton, 85, Lubec, Maine
Jane M. Orth, 49, Haverhill, Mass.
Thomas Pecorelli, 31, of Los Angeles, California
Berinthia Berenson Perkins, 53, Los Angeles, Calif.
Sonia Morales Puopolo, 58, of Dover, Massachusetts
David E. Retik, 33, Needham, Mass.
Philip M. Rosenzweig, 47, Acton, Mass.
Richard Ross, 58, Newton, Massachusetts
Jessica Sachs, 22, Billerica, Massachusetts
Rahma Salie, 28, Boston, Mass.
Heather Lee Smith, 30, Boston, Mass.
Douglas J. Stone, 54, Dover, N.H
Xavier Suarez, 41, Chino Hills, Calif.
Michael Theodoridis, 32, Boston, Mass.
James Trentini, 65, Everett, Massachusetts
Mary Trentini, 67, Everett, Massachusetts
Pendyala Vamsikrishna, 30, Los Angeles, Calif.
Mary Wahlstrom, 78, Kaysville, Utah
Kenneth Waldie, 46, Methuen, Massachusetts
John Wenckus, 46, Torrance, Calif.
Candace Lee Williams, 20, Danbury, Conn.
Christopher Zarba, 47, Hopkinton, Massachusetts

TERRORISTS
Waleed Alshehri
Wail M. Alshehri
Mohammad Atta
Abdulaziz Alomari
Satam Al Suqami

[John Doe II]

25. Aah

Enfin!
May I inquire which source you might give for your claim?

[Make7]

34. The primary source was not American Airlines.

Therefore, the sources I used are not credible. Furthermore, the fact that this list doesn't completely match the other passenger lists reported by the media constitutes additional evidence that the lists are fake. (If I am understanding the argument of the original article properly.)

:) Make7


P.S. Do you Google?

[John Doe II]

85. What's your point

I'm not really sure if your statement is of any help in ansswering my above mentioned questions.
Besides may I ask why you ask me if I google?
Do you google? What's the importance of this question and btw there are better serach engines than google but anyway.
Why not simply try and answer the question of this thread?

[Make7]

98. I got my list off the internet.

If you google the first line of the list in quotes, it takes you to the site that I got the passenger list I posted. (Except for the hijackers.)

How is one more list that doesn't match 100% any of the other lists going to do anything but add fuel to the fire that the lists are "fake"? Since we know that they are "fake" because they are not all exactly the same. (Or am I misunderstanding the argument Gerard Holmgren is making?)

See post #94 for my perpective of the question of this thread. (Starting at "On to the list:")

-Make7

[RH]

22. Please yourself then.

If you feel that there is no shortage of people with the time to spare and the answers to supply, thence no reason for you to promote or explain the concern, then that's just fine by me.

Bye Bye.

[DulceDecorum]

44. Truth Suppression Technique Number 9

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

RH says:
before anybody wants to spend any time on Waleed Iskander you have to convince them that Waleed Iskander is worth the trouble.

[MercutioATC]

52. Ahhh! I thought I'd seen the last of your "Truth Suppression Technique"

list!

It's kind of comforting to see that some things never change...

[RH]

54. "Truth Suppression Technique Number 26"

26. Contradict Hypocritically. Instead of dealing with a question or a subject, initiate a disruptive diversion by ranting on indignantly about Truth Suppression Techniques.

[DulceDecorum]

57. I bow to the master

of
Truth Suppression Technique Number 26,

RH.
26. Contradict Hypocritically. Instead of dealing with a question or a subject, initiate a disruptive diversion by ranting on indignantly about Truth Suppression Techniques.

[BlueDog2u]

100. Do you have a day job?

Keep up the good work, John Doe. :toast:

[John Doe II]

109. Cheers

I'll try.

Unfortunately not a lot of time theses days.:toast:

[FannySS]

15. His name is Iskandar, not Iskander (important for google) (nt)

[John Doe II]

17. Thanks for the info!

I didn't know that there are a lot of lists containing Waleed Iskandar. Thanks for figuring that out. But there are also several accounts naming him Waleed Iskander (Toronto Sta, 9/20/01, Boston Globe 9/22/01; Boston Herald, 9/24/01 etc). But there are clearly fewer sources.
However US Arly Sergeant Waleed Iskander/Iskandar was Stanford graduate and in January the University Wire of Stanford announced the "Waleed Iskander Foundantion".
I won't talk about the strange fact that many names from the passenger lists are spelled differently although on the manifest there is only one version of the name.
Still the question is: Did he die aboard.
And the more general question:
Of the 100 names we have which 92 had been aboard?
What is the definite version of AA 11 manifest?

[DulceDecorum]

66. Skinner makes the rules around here

and it does not appear that you, RH,
A) know that fact, or
B) care one whit.

RH asks:
Who makes the rules around here?

[DulceDecorum]

5. Previous thread on the Flight 11 manifest is located at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=26095&mesg_id=26095

[NecessaryOnslaught]

51. Mommy, this is Mark Bingham

You believe me don't you mommy?? :crazy:

http://www.israel21c.org/bin/en.jsp?enDispWho=Articles%5El847&enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enVersion=0&enZone=Technology&

[DulceDecorum]

59. So that's how they crashed the plane.

As commonplace as PEDs (cellphones) have become, there are several places where the privately-owned variety just will not work well—for example, inside the aluminum tubes we call airplanes. Yes, a passenger can get a signal with his personal phone at seat 4A while the aircraft is on the ground. He might even be able to maintain the signal during the initial takeoff and climb out. But as the aircraft groundspeed increases, the cell technology will fail to switch receiver towers rapidly enough to maintain a continuous receive/transmit handhold, and the passenger’s cell phone will drop the signal.

The dropped signal is one reason not to use a personal phone in a moving aircraft. Another, more serious reason is that the phone may produce harmonic interference with the aircraft avionics equipment. Seat 4A isn’t just a comfortable first-class accommodation; it and the rest of the forward compartment are directly over an electronics equipment bay in the airplane’s belly. Seat 44D is no better a location to use personal phones, for the aircraft’s aluminum skin is veined with cables and wiring bundles, front to back.

The barely detectable electronic pollution that a personal cell phone or other PED produces has a short path to the sensitive navigation, communication and autoflight computers that make modern, high-altitude, high-speed air travel possible. Once the signal is inside the black boxes, it is anyone’s guess what the aircraft will do. The net result is aircraft avionics are potentially compromised.
http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/av/show_mag.cgi?pub=av&mon=0901&file=0901productfocus.htm

In addition, the sky above 10,000 feet hardly seems to be a safe haven. In October of 1998 the captain of a 757 flying at 37,000 feet over the state of Washington experienced a rash of autopilot disconnects, on all three systems, for a period of three to four hours. The problem eventually was traced to a severely hearing-impaired passenger who was using a device with a headphone and a microprocessor in his pocket.

In his ASRS report the captain surmised, "Recalling that interference...is normally associated with wired devices not contained within the microprocessor case, and that PED interference is very site-specific, I asked the flight attendant to move the passenger forward not less than three rows, but preferably six rows." This was done and the autopilots calmed down.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:-36yCSgu3ZsJ:www.aviationtoday.com/sia/19990901.htm++site:www.aviationtoday.com+aviation+today+cellphone+&hl=en

Gollobin says. "Any radio transmission coming off the airplane in a terrorist situation is suspect."
Other than cell phone messages from terrified flight attendants and passengers, relatively little is known about what exactly occurred aboard the four airplanes hijacked on 9/11.
http://www.aviationtoday.com/sia/20040801.htm

December 05, 2004
Bryger estimates that the in-flight cell phone will be operable on planes within two years, and within a short time after that, will become a standard feature on all flights.

Mommy,
I am calling you from the future.
You believe me don't you mommy??

In the Year of the Neocons, 2001,
the rulers of this planet devised the ultimate plan.
They would reshape the Future by changing the Past.
The plan required something that felt no pity.
No pain. No fear.
Something unstoppable.
They created the



Problems with Time Travel
If we are ever able to develop a workable theory for time travel, we would open up the ability to create very complicated problems called paradoxes. A paradox is defined as something that contradicts itself. Here are two common examples:
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you could travel back to a time before you were born. The mere fact that you could exist in a time before you were born creates a paradox. If you were born in 1960, how could you exist in 1955?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/time-travel6.htm

The same darn way that the cellphones that will be operative in 2006
existed in 2001
AND phoned home.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

65. Mommy its me..

Calvin Kle.. I mean Mark Bingham. :evilgrin:

[Old and In the Way]

2. One area of inquiry that would be interesting.

I believe 175 and 11 were both less than 1/2 full. I took 175 on 8/7/01 and it was filled enough that we (my business partner and myself) couldn't get seat assignments together.


I'd be interested in knowing what the average or typical passenger load is/was for those flights. I think the non-stops are almost always overbooked, given the costs to fly trans-continent interms of fuel used.

[tngledwebb]

84. The low booking must relate to the missing planes.

or the ones that never flew that day. How and why?

[DulceDecorum]

6. A few questions .......

Previously on
AA 11: The Flight manifest?!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=26095

In Post # 14
RH said:
the bts database provides ontime statistics.
That is the very point and purpose of it.
It is not then reasonable to expect a hijacked aircraft to be on time, is it?

So off we went to the BTS
to see if the aircraft known as Flight 11 was indeed on time
BEFORE IT WAS HIJACKED.

"Departure Statistic(s):Scheduled Departure Time,Actual Departure Time,Scheduled Elapsed Time,Actual Elapsed Time,Departure Delay,Wheels-off Time,Taxi-out Time"
"Airport(s):BOS"
"Airline(s):AA"
"Month(s):September"
"Day(s):11"
"Year(s):2001"
"Airport: Boston, MA-Logan International (BOS)"

Carrier Code, Date (MM/DD/YYYY), Flight Number, Tail Number, Destination Airport, Scheduled Departure Time , Actual Departure Time , Scheduled Elapsed Time (Minutes), Actual Elapsed Time (Minutes), Departure Delay (Minutes), Wheels-off Time , Taxi-out Time (Minutes)
AA, 09/11/2001, 0011, UNKNOW, LAX, 7:45, 0:00, 0374, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 0145, UNKNOW, SJC, 11:00, 0:00, 0380, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 0153, N232AA, ORD, 8:30, 8:29, 0165, 0000, -1, 8:41, 0012
AA, 09/11/2001, 0163, UNKNOW, LAX, 15:30, 0:00, 0377, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 0181, UNKNOW, LAX, 11:00, 0:00, 0380, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 0189, N3BMAA, SEA, 8:45, 8:43, 0373, 0000, -2, 8:56, 0013
AA, 09/11/2001, 0193, UNKNOW, SFO, 15:25, 0:00, 0385, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 0195, UNKNOW, SFO, 9:00, 0:00, 0397, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 0197, UNKNOW, SFO, 17:10, 0:00, 0395, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 0223, UNKNOW, LAX, 17:30, 0:00, 0381, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 0225, UNKNOW, SAN, 18:10, 0:00, 0375, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 0259, UNKNOW, SJC, 18:30, 0:00, 0388, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 0269, N636AA, SJC, 8:00, 7:57, 0388, 0000, -3, 8:09, 0012
AA, 09/11/2001, 0277, UNKNOW, SAN, 9:30, 0:00, 0372, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 0363, UNKNOW, AUS, 17:35, 0:00, 0268, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 0401, UNKNOW, SJU, 12:15, 0:00, 0242, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 0449, UNKNOW, MIA, 8:50, 0:00, 0221, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 0461, N255AA, DFW, 6:40, 6:39, 0251, 0324, -1, 6:50, 0011
AA, 09/11/2001, 0489, UNKNOW, ORD, 10:59, 0:00, 0160, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 0583, UNKNOW, DFW, 11:55, 0:00, 0248, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 0645, N3BLAA, JFK, 6:05, 6:01, 0075, 0062, -4, 6:20, 0019
AA, 09/11/2001, 1011, UNKNOW, ORD, 19:31, 0:00, 0171, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 1019, N078AA, SJU, 6:55, 7:00, 0242, 0228, 5, 7:14, 0014
AA, 09/11/2001, 1025, UNKNOW, ORD, 16:16, 0:00, 0174, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 1079, UNKNOW, DFW, 15:05, 0:00, 0251, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 1101, UNKNOW, ORD, 18:39, 0:00, 0171, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 1115, UNKNOW, MIA, 14:55, 0:00, 0199, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 1117, UNKNOW, DFW, 19:26, 0:00, 0239, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 1121, UNKNOW, DFW, 16:30, 0:00, 0262, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 1135, N2CFAA, ORD, 7:00, 6:51, 0170, 0262, -9, 7:19, 0028
AA, 09/11/2001, 1141, UNKNOW, ORD, 14:15, 0:00, 0167, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 1285, UNKNOW, DFW, 9:58, 0:00, 0248, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 1353, UNKNOW, ORD, 13:01, 0:00, 0163, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 1367, UNKNOW, MIA, 18:25, 0:00, 0198, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 1547, N321AA, MCO, 7:25, 7:26, 0179, 0175, 1, 7:39, 0013
AA, 09/11/2001, 1555, N3BBAA, ORD, 6:00, 5:54, 0161, 0141, -6, 6:03, 0009
AA, 09/11/2001, 1629, UNKNOW, ORD, 12:20, 0:00, 0160, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 1633, UNKNOW, ORD, 18:00, 0:00, 0171, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 1663, N521AA, DFW, 7:05, 7:05, 0252, 0000, 0, 7:18, 0013
AA, 09/11/2001, 1711, N061AA, MIA, 6:08, 6:04, 0199, 0177, -4, 6:18, 0014
AA, 09/11/2001, 1757, N3CLAA, ORD, 7:42, 7:37, 0158, 0192, -5, 7:48, 0011
AA, 09/11/2001, 1797, UNKNOW, DFW, 13:27, 0:00, 0249, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 1811, N2CBAA, DCA, 6:40, 6:37, 0099, 0088, -3, 6:47, 0010
AA, 09/11/2001, 1813, UNKNOW, DCA, 11:20, 0:00, 0099, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 1821, UNKNOW, ORD, 9:19, 0:00, 0166, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 1837, UNKNOW, DCA, 9:35, 0:00, 0105, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 1849, UNKNOW, ORD, 15:22, 0:00, 0172, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 1857, N630AA, DFW, 8:15, 8:14, 0249, 0000, -1, 8:30, 0016
AA, 09/11/2001, 1859, UNKNOW, DCA, 17:00, 0:00, 0105, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 1861, UNKNOW, DCA, 14:30, 0:00, 0101, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 1887, UNKNOW, DCA, 19:25, 0:00, 0109, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 1901, UNKNOW, MIA, 12:00, 0:00, 0196, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 1971, N5EPAA, SJU, 8:20, 8:09, 0246, 0239, -11, 8:34, 0025
AA, 09/11/2001, 1983, N3BRAA, FLL, 6:35, 6:32, 0195, 0185, -3, 6:43, 0011
AA, 09/11/2001, 2027, UNKNOW, DFW, 18:34, 0:00, 0246, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
AA, 09/11/2001, 2055, UNKNOW, DFW, 16:16, 0:00, 0254, 0000, 0, 0:00, 0000
The total number of records: 56

Oh my.
So many entries.
How many of those actually departed Logan
and at what time were they scheduled to do so?

AA, 09/11/2001, 1555, N3BBAA, ORD, 6:00, 5:54, 0161, 0141, -6, 6:03, 0009
AA, 09/11/2001, 0645, N3BLAA, JFK, 6:05, 6:01, 0075, 0062, -4, 6:20, 0019
AA, 09/11/2001, 1711, N061AA, MIA, 6:08, 6:04, 0199, 0177, -4, 6:18, 0014
AA, 09/11/2001, 1983, N3BRAA, FLL, 6:35, 6:32, 0195, 0185, -3, 6:43, 0011
AA, 09/11/2001, 0461, N255AA, DFW, 6:40, 6:39, 0251, 0324, -1, 6:50, 0011
AA, 09/11/2001, 1811, N2CBAA, DCA, 6:40, 6:37, 0099, 0088, -3, 6:47, 0010
AA, 09/11/2001, 1019, N078AA, SJU, 6:55, 7:00, 0242, 0228, 5, 7:14, 0014
AA, 09/11/2001, 1135, N2CFAA, ORD, 7:00, 6:51, 0170, 0262, -9, 7:19, 0028
AA, 09/11/2001, 1663, N521AA, DFW, 7:05, 7:05, 0252, 0000, 0, 7:18, 0013
AA, 09/11/2001, 1547, N321AA, MCO, 7:25, 7:26, 0179, 0175, 1, 7:39, 0013
*Flight 11 pushed back from Gate 32 in Terminal B at 7:40. 911 Commission*
AA, 09/11/2001, 1757, N3CLAA, ORD, 7:42, 7:37, 0158, 0192, -5, 7:48, 0011
AA, 09/11/2001, 0269, N636AA, SJC, 8:00, 7:57, 0388, 0000, -3, 8:09, 0012
AA, 09/11/2001, 1857, N630AA, DFW, 8:15, 8:14, 0249, 0000, -1, 8:30, 0016
AA, 09/11/2001, 1971, N5EPAA, SJU, 8:20, 8:09, 0246, 0239, -11, 8:34, 0025
AA, 09/11/2001, 0153, N232AA, ORD, 8:30, 8:29, 0165, 0000, -1, 8:41, 0012
AA, 09/11/2001, 0189, N3BMAA, SEA, 8:45, 8:43, 0373, 0000, -2, 8:56, 0013

Oh, dear,
where, oh, WHERE, is Flight 11?
I know I saw it somwehere up there
(once the BTS were alerted and compelled to include a mention.)
Ah, there it is,
right on top where you can't miss it.

Let us focus on Flight 11.
Results of Searching Detailed Statistics

"Departure Statistic(s):Scheduled Departure Time,Actual Departure Time,Scheduled Elapsed Time,Actual Elapsed Time,Departure Delay,Wheels-off Time,Taxi-out Time"
"Airport(s):BOS"
"Airline(s):AA"
"Month(s):September"
"Day(s):11"
"Year(s):2001"
"Airport: Boston, MA-Logan International (BOS)"

AiIRPORT: BOS
Airline(s): AA
Month(s):September
Day(s):11
Year(s):2001
Airport: LAX
Carrier Code, AA,
Date (MM/DD/YYYY), 09/11/2001,
Flight Number, 0011,
Tail Number, UNKNOW,
Destination Airport, LAX,
Scheduled Departure Time , 7:45,
Actual Departure Time , 0:00,
Scheduled Elapsed Time (Minutes), 0374,
Actual Elapsed Time (Minutes), 0000,
Departure Delay (Minutes), 0,
Wheels-off Time , 0:00,
Taxi-out Time (Minutes) 0000

Which brings us directly to
Post #23
DulceDecorum asks:
Since the plane was unable to send the ACARS data to the BTS,
which is something that is highly computerized and happens automatically,
then how the bloody blazes did the plane manage to send the airline passenger manifest data?

Post #39
DulceDecorum says:
"But the onlt credible source for such information is the airline passenger list, and the only credible source for obtaining this information is the airline itself, or authorities and media to which the airline makes it available."
-- Gerard Holmgren
Let us review the manner in which passenger lists are generated.
A flight is scheduled.
People buy tickets.
People board the plane.
The doors are closed.
All people aboard the plane are counted, identified, and accounted for.
This includes crew, and non-ticketed personnel.
A list of persons aboard the plane is recorded as the official passenger manifest.
At some point after the flight pushes back from the gate,
the list is sent via ACARS to the airline HQ and probably also the BTS.
HOW did Flight 11 or Flight 77 achieve a passenger manifest?
The flight was NOT scheduled.
The flight has no wheels off time.
And now some excerpts from the 911 Commission Report.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.ht...
4. Flight 11 pushed back from Gate 32 in Terminal B at 7:40. See AAL response to the Commission's February 3, 2004, requests, Mar. 15, 2004.
9. See TSA report, "Selectee Status of September 11th Hijackers," undated. For boarding and seating information, see AAL record, SABRE information on Flight 11, Sept. 11, 2001.These boarding times from the American system are approximate only; for Flight 11, they indicated that some passengers "boarded" after the aircraft had pushed back from the gate. See AAL response to the Commission's February 3, 2004, requests, Mar. 15, 2004.
Care to explain
HOW
one boards an aircraft that has already pushed back from the gate?
Did Scotty beam them up?

Summary:
HOW did the plane manage to send the airline passenger manifest data, when it was obviously unable to send ANY other data via ACARS?

HOW does ANYONE board an aircraft that has already pushed back from the gate?

[RH]

8. How

the bloody blazes did the plane manage to send the airline passenger manifest data?

Somebody is going to have to explain that one.

Why would an aircraft have to send manifest data?

Does the number of passengers change after departure?

[DulceDecorum]

9. Yes, HOW?

Do you have any answers, RH?

[Make7]

10. Does it send it or doesn't it?

"Previously on
AA 11: The Flight manifest?!"

"Post #23
DulceDecorum asks:
Since the plane was unable to send the ACARS data to the BTS,
which is something that is highly computerized and happens automatically,
then how the bloody blazes did the plane manage to send the airline passenger manifest data?"

"Post #39
DulceDecorum says:
Let us review the manner in which passenger lists are generated.
A flight is scheduled.
People buy tickets.
People board the plane.
The doors are closed.
All people aboard the plane are counted, identified, and accounted for.
This includes crew, and non-ticketed personnel.
A list of persons aboard the plane is recorded as the official passenger manifest.
At some point after the flight pushes back from the gate,
the list is sent via ACARS to the airline HQ and probably also the BTS."
__________

So there can't be a passenger manifest because the plane was unable to send the information it probably sends to the BTS?

[DulceDecorum]

16. The Passenger Manifest contains names and personal data.

And I am not sure that the BTS wants,
needs
or requires such details.

In addition to the passenger manifest,
the aircraft generates a cargo manifest.

BOTH manifests are generated BEFORE the aircraft leaves the ground.
Why?
They need BOTH manifests to determine the weight that the plane is carrying and also to determine the location of the center of gravity.

On August 25, 2001, about 1845 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 402B, N8097W, registered to Skystream Inc. and operated by Blackhawk International Airways Inc, as a 14 CFR Part 135 air taxi flight, crashed shortly after takeoff from runway 27 at Marsh Harbour Airport, Bahamas. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time. A VFR (Visual Flight Rules, not ACARS) flight plan was filed, but not activated. The airplane was destroyed, the commercial-rated pilot and eight passengers were fatally injured. The flight was originated at the time of the accident and was destined to Opa-Locka, Florida.
The airplane was seen lifting off the runway, and then nose down, impacting in a marsh on the south side of the departure end of runway 27. The baggage from the airplane was removed and weighed. The total weight of the luggage, fuel on board at the time of the accident, plus the weight of the passengers showed that the total gross weight of the airplane was substantially exceeded. Preliminary center of gravity calculations showed that the center of gravity was significantly outside the flight envelope past the aft center of gravity.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20010907X01905&ntsbno=MIA01RA225&akey=1

A pilot has to be out of his gourd
to attempt to fly a plane without
FIRST counting the passengers,
and then calculating and confirming the load.
The pilot of that particular plane fit squarely in that category.
He was so high
that he could not tell the difference between seven, eight and nine.

The plane that crashed killing singer Aaliyah and eight others on Saturday was carrying too many passengers, according to the manufacturers.
The Cessna 402B is only licensed to carry between six and eight people including the pilot, said a spokeswoman for the Cessna Aircraft Company.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/1518354.stm

The pilot of a plane which crashed in the Bahamas last year, killing US singer Aaliyah along with seven others, had traces of cocaine and alcohol in his system, aviation officials have revealed.
An autopsy performed on Luis Antonio Morales Blanes found cocaine in his urine and alcohol in his stomach, the Bahamas Department of Civil Aviation said in a statement following an inquiry into the cause of the crash.
Morales had also been sentenced to three years probation on charges of possessing crack cocaine only 12 days before the crash.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2133876.stm

Therefore, unless the original pilot of Flight 11,
Captain John Ogonowski,
unless he and his copilot Thomas McGuinness
were BOTH crackhead drunks,
those weight calculations were done BEFORE takeoff.
And the passengers WERE counted and accounted for.

The plane that crashed killing singer Aaliyah and eight others on Saturday was carrying too many passengers, according to the manufacturers.
The Cessna 402B is only licensed to carry between six and eight people including the pilot, said a spokeswoman for the Cessna Aircraft Company.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/1518354.stm

See,
that is why the aviators get so upset
when someone tries to stow away in a wheel-well or something.
You can wind up killing everyone aboard
because they have not figured your weight
into the calculations they use to determine if they can fly safely.
Let us visit another forum for a moment.

Username: DAirbus
Posted 2004-03-05 02:53:35 and read 395 times.
All commercial aircraft, at least in the U.S., use standard weights for passengers and bags. They vary from airline to airline but the above posts give you an idea. Any freight or mail prepared for shipment has a label on it with the weight each piece which is then added up and entered into the weight and balance calculations. Likewise, any containerized or palletized cargo is weighed at the freight terminal and delivered to the aircraft with labels telling the ramp what the total weight is.
Most regional carriers and smaller operators have a manual weight and balance system where the F/O (usually) receives a cargo manifest from the ramp agents and proceeds to fill out a worksheet with the weights. He or she then uses a plastic weight and balance calculator or a chart to determine the CG and trim settings for T/O. Larger airlines have automated systems where all the weights and passenger counts are entered into a computer and it does all the calculations and proceeds to print up a sheet with all pertinent information. It will also advise you when something is wrong and will also tell you what corrective action is needed.

Username: DAirbus
Posted 2004-04-02 06:24:11 and read 132 times.
Same thing happened to me while non-reving on a flight from SNA to ATL last Tuesday. I was on a DL 757 with a light load of 18F and 38Y pax. Total cargo was 1200 lbs, all in the aft cargo bin. I know from experience that the 757 tends to be nose-heavy when it is empty. When I got my seat assignment at the gate, the agent said that they could not seat me in F/C because the aircraft was close to the fwd CG limit for takeoff. They suggested that I talk to the flight attendants on board about the situation and ask if I could move to first class after takeoff. The f/a's gave me a dirty look at first until I told them I was an employee and what the situation was. I was polite and explained that it was up to them to decide to let me up front or not. They were very understanding after that. I proceeded to move to First after takeoff and had a very pleasant flight. They did ask me to move back to my coach seat for landing although I do not think it was entirely necessary by then.
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/tech_ops/print.main?id=85410

OK, so we all
(with a few exceptions)
now know about the necessity of knowing
A) the weight, and
A) the location of the weight,
within the aircraft.

We could attempt to calculate the weight and its location for Flight 11,
but we are hampered in the fact that no data,
apart from the passenger manifest,
appears to be available for this flight.
Unless you want to accept
the ubiquitous statement from the ungagged omnipresent worker.

"We only had two cargo things, which were lobsters," said an American cargo manager.
The live lobsters were shipped in two large pods by commercial operators in Boston to customers on the West Coast. American Flight 11 was bound for Los Angeles.
"We ship them all the time," the American worker said.
The plane, carrying 81 passengers, nine flight attendants and two pilots, also was loaded with U.S. mail and luggage, which did not raise any suspicions.
"There wasn't much cargo in it at all," the worker said. "Nothing was unusual."
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24448

Tom McGuinness was a graduate of Boston University, a Lieutenant Commander and F-14 pilot in the United States Navy and a 12-year veteran with American Airlines. Tom was a member of Bethany Church. He was deeply loved and will be sorely missed by all who knew him.
http://www.aapilots.com/public/flash/mentoring.asp?content_id=5735

As you all well know,
George W. Bush was himself once a pilot.

Bush on why the Air National Guard took him:
"They could sense I would be one of the great pilots of all time."
Houston Chronicle, August 1988

The Guard on Bush:
"George Walker Bush is one member of the younger generation who doesn't get his kicks from pot or hashish or speed.... As far as kicks are concerned, Lt. Bush gets his from the roaring afterburner of the F-102."
Texas Air National Guard press release, March 1970
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2003/01/ma_217_01.html

On Sept. 11 terrorists brought America to its knees in prayer, said McGuinness. But under Bush’s leadership, she added, the country raised itself up.
"George W. Bush has gained my support, and he has earned the support of all of us," she said. "I know a winner when I see it, and I know a man of character, courage and compassion when I see one.
"I saw it in my husband, Tom, and I see it in George W. Bush," she added.
Following her husband’s death, McGuinness established a ministry and traveled around the country telling her story. She has written a book titled "Beauty Beyond the Ashes" that is scheduled to be on bookshelves across the country on Aug. 11.
http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/08072004/news/30859.htm

I have no doubt in his ability to achieve remarkable heights
but, based on his wife's statements,
I now wonder about Tom McGuiness' prowess in the pretzel eating arena........

But I digress.
The fact of the matter is this:
All the original pilots of our four planes knew their way around the cockpit.
http://www.meriweather.com/767/767_main.html

And all four of the original pilots
had no reason to change their normal routine
while the plane was on the ground
and also for the first few minutes after having taken off.

To give you some idea of what the pilot and co-pilot do to earn those big bucks,
here is a copy of a
777 Flight CheckList
This list contains the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)
used in operating the 777 and is arranged in the order of the
phases of the flight.
http://www.meriweather.com/777/777_list.html

The United Airlines 777 looks magnificent the cockpit seems so less intimidating then some of the other older cockpits, the pilots make it look so easy using the ACARS and route request systems on the FMC. A nice morning approach, showing all the London landmarks visible on the way to 27L. The Chicago run also impressed with a nicely rounded off landing. Great DVD!
Lawrence Ashworth ; Manchester, UK
I have seen this so MANY times and i am also a fellow traveller on United Airlines and a Mileage Member as well. I experienced the thrill of flying in one of their 777s to London just right after I recieved this DVD. the procedures of pre-flight checklist and everything that Captain Craig Eldridge did was just remarkable. It shows to the world that United really is a WORLDWIDE PROFESSIONAL AIRLINE COMPANY. And they are! keep it up United!!
David Kapsner ; Irvine CA, USA
http://www.worldairroutes.com/United.html

Now I just KNOW that there are those who are going to discount the above because it is based on a Boeing 777 as opposed to the 757/767.
Since United Airlines Flight 93 Captain Jason Dahl
is alleged to have run the simulators for United Airlines,
let us have a look at a real pilot on a sim.

As far as the visual sight picture is concerned, when using the straight-ahead view, I prefer the 0.50 zoom, it looks more like the view from the lofty perch of a widebody cockpit seat (the 45 and 90 degree views look just fine in the no-zoom mode…btw, great 3D cockpit views). Also, I like that sometimes you have to add a copious amount of thrust to get her moving, although you have to keep it applied far more than in real life. I remember a 747 doing a maintenance run-up years ago at KORD. A Beechcraft Baron taxing behind it was flipped over; sadly the Baron pilot didn’t survive. Even in the 757, one has to be very cognizant of what's happening behind the jet, for instance, at a normal "breakaway thrust" (40% N1); my chart shows exhaust velocity of 100mph at 40' behind the engines, and 50mph up to 240' behind the aircraft. Moving a wide-body aircraft around an airport is something that's done with a lot of forethought and patience.
AS WE ARE TAXIING FRO TAKE-OFF, OUR WEIGHT AND BALANCE INFO (and performance data to include the stab trim setting) IS UPLINKED AND CHECKED BY BOTH OF US against our “preliminary” take-off data from the flight plan. It’s time to set the bugs on our airspeed indicators. The code in the sim reflects an airspeed “bug system” other than the one I’m used to (I’m guessing it’s from American’s version of SOPA), so I manually set the bugs as per my training.
<snip>
Everything about our climb and navigation towards Detroit this morning is going well, and the sim is performing identical to big Boeing.
http://www.frugalsworld.com/reviews/767pic-rev3.shtml

DID YOU SEE THAT?

As we are taxiing for take-off,
our weight and balance info
(and performance data to include the stab trim setting)
is uplinked
and checked by both of us
against our “preliminary” take-off data from the flight plan.

UPLINKED.
That thar plane must be using ACARS.
Unlike Flight 11 which never ever did taxi out or take-off,
but yet somehow managed to send off the passenger manifest,
complete with errors,
to certain interested parties.......

Without the weight data,
the pilot will not be able to calculate the correct takeoff speed.
And having Atta and Co
"boarding" AFTER the the plane has pushed back from the gate,
is NOT going to help matters any when they reach the end of the runway.

This (ACARS) uplink capability requires the airplane’s FMC (Flight Management Computer) to be equipped with the FMC communications feature and either the performance initiation function or the takeoff data function, or both. These features are available on current-production 737, 757, 767, and 777 airplanes. The ACARS/FMC system CAN ELIMINATE SEVERAL, but not all, POTENTIAL SOURCES OF ERROR. WEIGHT DATA MUST BE ENTERED MANUALLY
(AS PEOPLE ACTUALLY BOARD THE DAMN THING)
at some point in the calculation process, SO VERIFICATION IS STILL REQUIRED IN THE DISPATCH OR OPERATIONS OFFICE TO ENSURE THAT THE NUMBERS ENTERED MANUALLY WERE CORRECT.
(THE PASSENGER AND CARGO MANIFEST DATA
ARE DOUBLE CHECKED BY PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE PLANE)
<snip>
Boeing has developed a risk assessment checklist as a tool for this review. Operators should also consider two automation features that eliminate known points of error input. One is the ACARS/FMC communications feature, which is available on most current-production airplanes.
http://www.geocities.com/pegasusair_tr/week230.htm

Now this can all be very confusing
for those who are not terribly into the mechanics of flying.
So here is the skinny.
First,
here is a nice pretty diagram
which breaks all this down into bite-size pieces.
It is a REALLY GOOD DIAGRAM
and has LOTS AND LOTS OF NICE LINKS.
http://www.sasflightops.com/dlk/applicat.htm

And this is the simplified version of what is happening:

You gotta know how many people are in the plane.
You got to know where they are sitting so as to make the plane balance.
You gotta know how much cage you got and where it is located.
You gotta figure out how much total weight is on the plane.
You gotta do some complicated calculations to figure out
how fast the plane has to go to take off,
how much fuel you need to get to the other airport.
If you mess up on these equations,
you could get fired,
or worse still,
you might go someplace where you cannot be fired.
Like Hell.

ACARS helps you stay out of trouble.
You just tell the ACARS computer how much the cargo weighs
You just tell the ACARS computer how many passengers are aboard
You just tell the ACARS computer how many crew members are aboard
You just tell the ACARS computer how many other people are aboard
then the ACARS computer tells you how much the plane now weighs.

You take the plane-weight number
and ask ACARS how fast you should go to get off the runway.
ACARS does the math
and checks a whole lot of other stuff
and then sends all this stuff to someone who checks it.
The ACARS computer talks to the ATC, and between them,
they tell you what to do safely.

Make7 says:
So there can't be a passenger manifest because the plane was unable to send the information it probably sends to the BTS?

In order for the plane to have sent a passenger manifest,
it must also have sent a whole lot of data
(SUCH AS THE CARGO MANIFEST)
NONE of which is available for Flight 11.
The BTS is interested in the NUMBER of passengers transported
and in the AMOUNT of cargo moved.
I am not sure that the airline sends personally identifying info to the BTS.

THAT is why DulceDecorum said:
A list of persons aboard the plane is recorded as the official passenger manifest.
At some point after the flight pushes back from the gate,
the list is sent via ACARS to the airline HQ and PROBABLY ALSO the BTS."

In attacking the use of the one word PROBABLY you have just demonstrated
Truth Suppression Technique Number 4.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
http://www.universalway.org/Foreign/truthsuppression.html
The weakest aspect of the weakest charges.

The data so far
data that we know for a fact is sent to the airline for each subscribing plane,
the data supplied by American Airlines to the BTS and to the 911 Commission,
is laughable
and sneer-worthy.

[AZCat]

19. I've just begun to read into this ACARS stuff

It seems interesting. So far it appears that ACARS messages can be intercepted by anyone tuned into the right frequency, and there is some software that can "decode" the transmissions. There are a few web sites set up to log/archive the ACARS messages for certain areas, including this one here. They even have a Boston archive, but it only goes back to June of 2004. I have been looking for a log of the September 11th, 2001, ACARS messages in the Boston area but so far have come up empty-handed.

[Make7]

20. Perhaps I misunderstood.

Post #23 on AA 11: The Flight manifest?!:

"Since the plane was unable to send the ACARS data to the BTS,
which is something that is highly computerized and happens automatically,
then how the bloody blazes did the plane manage to send the airline passenger manifest data?" - DulceDecorum

I thought you meant that the passenger lists reported by the media must be fake because the airplane wasn't able to send the passenger manifest data to the BTS.

-Make7

[RH]

23. If anybody really wanted to know.

I dare say that a telephone call to American Airlines or to BTS would do the trick.

[Abe Linkman]

24. Don't YOU want to know?

You could do some original research and post your findings here on DU.

[DulceDecorum]

26. One word for you, Abe

[RH]

28. Not particularly.

Red herrings are all pretty much the same to me.

[DulceDecorum]

31. RH, you say you are not particularly interested

in knowing what happened
and yet you constantly harangue and harrass those who are.

[RH]

33. Who are they then?

Those who are.

Who is particularly interested? Where is this eager crowd?

:shrug:

If you really want to know why not ask the poeple with the answers to give? Should be easy enough. Pick up the phone.

With no sign of having done so I see no reason not to understand that some other priority operates.

[DulceDecorum]

37. Since you do not appear to be interested

in the truth,
why are you here?
Insulting and demeaning us?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RH]

42. Who is interested?

What is the truth of that?

I made a helpful suggestion.

What is your problem?

Pick up the phone.

[DulceDecorum]

43. Everyone but you

is interested.
That is why they doggedly find their way here.

Why are YOU here if you are NOT interested?

YOUR FREEDOM TO LEAVE
All visitors to the Democratic Underground website are here voluntarily. Nobody is forcing you to post on this message board. The administrators try their best to be fair, and to make Democratic Underground a welcoming place for progressives who like Democratic Underground and who want to be here. If you don't like Democratic Underground, or the members of Democratic Underground, or the way we run Democratic Underground, then we strongly suggest that you exercise your right to leave. If we decide that you don't like this place very much, then we reserve the right to show you the door ourselves.

[RH]

45. Just waiting

for you to find out. Let us know what they say.

Shouldn't be such a big deal just to ask how the data gets from AA to BTS.

[DulceDecorum]

47. The data gets from AA to the BTS

via ACARS.
End of story.

RH,
I challenge you to PROVE that AA uses ANY method
OTHER than ACARS
to report to the BTS.

If you have any other theory of data transfer,
state it
and PROVE IT.

[RH]

49. ACARS

is a digital data link system transmitted via VHF radio which allows airline flight operations departments to communicate with the various aircraft in their fleet.

[DulceDecorum]

56. BRAVO!!!

RH says:
ACARS is a digital data link system transmitted via VHF radio which allows airline flight operations departments to communicate with the various aircraft in their fleet.

READ ON, READ ON.

ACARS routes communications via ARINC computers, relieving some of the necessity for routine voice communication. ITEMS SUCH AS DEPARTURE ERPORTS, arrival reports, PASSENGER LOADS, fuel data, engine performance data, ARE REQUESTED BY THE AIRLINE OPERATIONS AND RETRIEVED FROM THE AIRCRAFT AT AUTOMATIC INTERVALS. http://www.rannoch.com/labf.html
Before the advent of ACARS, flight crews had to use VHF to relay this data to their operations on the ground.

See RH,
there IS a connection between the airline and ACARS and ARINC and the BTS.
And you found this out for yourself, once you went and had a look.
Isn't Google wonderful?

[RH]

62. I did read on.

Saw nothing at all about ACARS involved with communicating information from an air carrier to BTS.

No mention at all of BTS with regard to ACARS for that matter.

That notion seems to have arisen solely from the imagination of dulcedecorum.

A passenger load is not a passenger list, is it?

[seatnineb]

63. BTS gets information from ACARS.

Ron.........

The data on the BTS is from ACARS.......


ACARS data are also submitted by the air carriers to BTS every month in compliance with Title 14,Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter II, Part 234.4, Reporting on On-Time Performance.
http://www.oig.dot.gov/show_txt.php?id=47.


In fulfilling DOT’s data reporting requirements, the reporting air carriers use automated and/or manual systems for collecting flight data. Those using an automated system rely on the Aircraft Communication Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS). Based on the latest information available to DOT, of the 17 reporting air carriers, 9 (America West, American, Atlantic Coast, Continental, ExpressJet, JetBlue, Northwest, United and US Airways) use
ACARS exclusively; 3 (AirTran, Atlantic Southeast and Southwest) record arrival times manually; and 5 (Alaska, American Eagle, ATA, Delta and SkyWest) use a combination of ACARS and manual reporting systems.
http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/reports/2003/0312atcr.pdf

Your only salvation is that it does not appear to be done in real-time.....

[RH]

64. The BTS data

is reported from the air carrier.

It the air carrier's responsibility.

There was never any doubt that ontime flight data would come originally from ACARS.

So what is this about Salvation?

:shrug:

I have not yet seen anything to involve ACARS with the generation of a passenger list, nor anything to involve ACARS with transmitting information to BTS.

Something like a passenger list is no doubt needed before take off, to calculate the weight, but so what?

So please remind us, what is the significance of ACARS supposed to be with regard to the authenticity of a passenger list?

[DulceDecorum]

71. Reminder

RH says:
Something like a passenger list is no doubt needed before take off, to calculate the weight, but so what?

Yeah, so what.
Flight 11 never made it off the runway.
However,
to those who are interested in verifying the usage of ACARS:

THE FIRST ITEM IS TO INITIATE THE ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System). This is a digital air/ground communications system used as a datalink between the aircraft and airline. The datalink uses a third, dedicated, VHF system as the communication link. Beside transmitting crew generated messages to ground, the datalink also automatically sends messages for example in the form of OUT ( out from gate), OFF (off ground), ON (on ground) and IN (in to gate) to the airline host computer.
http://www.hilmerby.com/md80/md_prep.html

SAS Datalink System
The INITIALIZATION IS THE STARTING POINT of an ACARS flight leg. When the crew is at their stations before departure THE FIRST ACTION IS TO PRESS THE INIT REQ button on the ACARS terminal.
http://www.sasflightops.com/dlk/init.htm

For those who are interested in verifying the usefulness of ACARS:

An Airbus 330-343 aircraft, operating as Air Canada 875, with 253 passengers and 13 crew members on board, was on a scheduled flight from Frankfurt, Germany, to Montreal, Quebec. As the aircraft was taking off at approximately 0830 Coordinated Universal Time on Runway 25R, the underside of the tail struck the runway. The strike was undetected by the flight crew, but they were notified of the strike during the climb-out by Air Traffic Services (ATS) and by a cabin crew member. The flight crew requested a holding pattern to assess the situation. After discussion with the company, the flight crew decided to return to Frankfurt. ........

At 0752, the flight crew received the initial load figures from the aircraft communication addressing and reporting system (ACARS), indicating an estimated take-off weight of 222.7 metric tons and a centre of gravity (CG) of 23.7% mean aerodynamic chord. .......
At 0808, the ACARS provided the flight crew with the final load figures, indicating a take-off weight of 221.2 metric tons and a CG of 23.8% mean aerodynamic chord. Either during the push back from the gate or during taxiing, the PNF reinserted the final load figures and take-off speeds in the MCDU. By mistake, the PNF typed a V1 speed of 126 knots instead of 156 knots. .......
At 0829:12, the aircraft was cleared for take-off. The take-off was flown by the captain, in the left seat. Flight data recorder (FDR) information showed that the rotation was initiated at 133 knots, and a pitch rate of 2.81 degrees per second was reached from rotation initiation to tail strike. The tail strike occurred when the pitch attitude was about 10.4 degrees and lasted for about two seconds. ....
Prior to push-back from the gate, the final load figures were provided to the crew. The take-off weight was then revised to 221.2 metric tons. According to the SOP, the gross weight must be reinserted if changed by more than plus or minus 500 kilograms. This was the case and the PNF reinserted it. He also re-entered the take-off speeds, although he was not required to do so, since the take-off speeds initially provided by the ACARS were valid for any take-off weight above 219.1 metric tons up to 223.6 metric tons. .....
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/2002/A02F0069/A02F0069.asp

Here is a Boeing 757 link that examines some of the terms used above.
http://www.757.org.uk/sops/sop1.html

For those who are interested in verifying the use of
Truth Suppression Techniques:

RH says:
So please remind us, what is the significance of ACARS supposed to be with regard to the authenticity of a passenger list?

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

RH says:
Something like a passenger list is no doubt needed before take off, to calculate the weight, but so what?

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

Rh says:
There was never any doubt that ontime flight data would come originally from ACARS.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
http://www.universalway.org/Foreign/truthsuppression.html

[RH]

72. and apart from all that crap,

what has ACARS possibly got to do with the authenticity of a passenger list?

[seatnineb]

78. Answer: Everything.

We may not get names(to the best of my knowledge).

But we do get a passenger count.

Upon departure, this person enters each bin weight into the copmputer as well as passenger counts and fuel weights, and then transmits the Final Weight Data Record (WDR) to the printer. Ths printout is given to the pilots, and it tells them what to set their stab trim at, and gives them takeoff speeds and weights for each corresponding runway.

Any last-minute changes can usually be tranmitted to the pilots via ACARS
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/tech_ops/read.main/74860

Which brings us right back to how so many different articles gave us so many different amounts of passengers for the same flight.

[RH]

79. You've shown nothing.

Nothing to involve ACARS with the generation of a passenger list.

The most you've got so far is that ACARS needs a passenger count, i.e. a number of passengers, a number apparently fed in by a person, a number presumably derived from a passenger list.

So what is that supposed to prove? What has that possibly got to do with the authenticity of the list?

:shrug:

N.B.

"When the agent is ready to close the door they confirm the passenger count with the flight attendants, check it with the pilots and check the fuel load aboard with the pilots. After closeout, they input this information into the system and the final count and fuel load gets reported to the load desk."

ACARS is an in-flight system. The passenger list is determined before ACARS is involved.

[seatnineb]

89. Who has to prove ACARS generates the passenger list?

O.K Ron,let's see what American Airlines have got to say.

(Fort Worth, TX-WABC, September 11, 2001) — American Airlines says it has lost two aircraft in what it calls tragic incidents this morning.
American says one of the planes involved was Flight 11, a Boeing 767 flying from Boston to Los Angeles. The flight had 81 passengers, nine flight attendants and two pilots on board.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/WABC_091101_AAflights.html


So excluding pilots and flight attendents...

American said there were 81 civilian passengers aboard flight 11.
Take away 5 evil hijackers leaves you with 76 innocent passengers.

But there is one problem.

A man who goes by the name of Titus Davidson died in the WTC....

So says the almighty CNN.......

Titus Davidson, 55, New York, N.Y., USA
security guard, Morgan Stanley
Confirmed dead, World Trade Center, at/in building
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/rescue.victims.html


And several other lists have also published it so.

http://memorialquilt.com/Phase1D.asp#Index D

http://pwhite.ba.ttu.edu/Home/in_memorium.asp

http://www.jcanu.hpg.ig.com.br/history/h4sep/11ded29b.html


But in 2002 CNN moved him from the WTC list onto the AA11 manifest!........

Titus Davidson 55 Morgan Stanley New York NY United States
AA Flight 11
Updated.
2002-09-03
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-location/page93.html

And it has remained that way ever since.

And when you click on the profile/biography of Titus Davidson at CNN you get........Nothing.....


The inclusion of Davidson means that one of your hijackers will have to go......

In short......I dont trust CNN or American Airlines.

[DulceDecorum]

81. 81 passengers and nary a hijacker

was the information initially given out.

More bodies
(Up to 11 crew and 5 hijackers)
means several more people on the passenger manifest.
Extra luggage means more weight added to the cargo manifest.

The first thing the pilot does is
turn on the Flight Management Computer and ACARS.
Just before takeoff,
he reviews the data and inputs the takeoff speed which is based
ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ABOARD THE PLANE.
Then the pilot and the dispatcher both agree on the flight plan
and the plane awaits clearnce.

Since the plane was unable to send the ACARS data to the BTS,
which is something that is highly computerized and happens automatically,
then how the bloody blazes did the plane manage to send the airline passenger manifest data?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=26095#26138

RH says:
Here is the published manifest
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=26095&mesg_id=26261&page=

Great,
now we start doing calculations to see if that thing was properly balanced.
BEFORE they released the mace.

BETTY ONG: Okay, my name is Betty Ong. I’m number 3 on Flight 11.
MALE VOICE: Okay.
BETTY ONG: And the cockpit is not answering their phone. And there’s somebody stabbed in business class. And there’s . . . we can’t breathe in business class. Somebody’s got mace or something.
MALE VOICE: Can you describe the person that you said -- someone is what in business class?
BETTY ONG: I’m sitting in the back. Somebody’s coming back from business. If you can hold on for one second, they’re coming back.
BETTY ONG: Okay. Our number 1 got stabbed. Our purser is stabbed. Nobody knows who is stabbed who, and we can’t even get up to business class right now cause nobody can breathe. Our number 1 is stabbed right now. And who else is . . .
MALE VOICE: Okay, and do we . . .
BETTY ONG: and our number 5 -- our first class passengers are -- galley flight attendant and our purser has been stabbed. And we can’t get into the cockpit, the door won’t open. Hello?
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-ong-tape.htm

She talks REMARKABLY WELL for someone who is having difficulty breathing.
I wonder why the cockpit door wouldn't open.......

While the B757 has its own, unrecirculated air supply, the B767 does not, unless the recirculation fans are off. If such a terrible event occurred where someone in the cabin did release a chemical agent on a B767, it would probably not be realized until it was too late, and by that time the recirculated air would have reached the cockpit also, affecting the pilots before they could likely know there was a chemical attack underway. Use of oxygen masks after the fact would probably not be enough to prevent incapacitation ... making aircraft takeover an easy job for the hijackers ... My suggestion is that flying with the recirculation fans off on the B767 be a standard procedure given the high threat that currently exists for terrorism.
"Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following info: reporter stated that the company issued a notice for flightcrews to shut off recirculation fans of the B767 cabin air whenever any noticeable contaminates were seen or smelled. It was noted by the reporter that the B757, unlike the B767, is designed to not have any recirculated air to the cockpit."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_12_16/ai_84158862

Oh, so the pilots had passed out,
but the flight attendants were still awake.
But how did they get the plane to crash into the WTC?

The two Byers head for the airport to try to find the explosives in the aircraft. Both board the plane, but cannot find explosives, using hydrocarbon "sniffer" devices.
They realize that the airplane will be remote controlled, just like Bert's car was. Talking by phone to the Gunmen's office, Byers asks Langly and Frohike to hack into the aircraft controls. They do and discover that the plane is programmed to crash into the World Trade Center. Bert enters the cockpit and tries to warn the aircrew, but they don't believe him. Making a lunge, he deactivates the autopilot and the crew realizes that they are not in control. They have 22 minutes before they hit the building.
http://www.xfiles.stylicious.com/lonegunmen/1aeb79.php
And that crew was awake.

But this is fiction and we are dealing with ...
Ooops, what I am saying??
It's not like Flight 11 was ever even actually on the runway.
We were watching
Digital Fraud In Real Time Video - Lying With Pixels
http://www.rense.com/general31/pix.htm

Nearly 48 hours after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the names of the hijackers flashed across TV screens for the world to see. Based on intelligence information gained from interviews, witnesses, FLIGHT-MANIFEST LOGS and passports found at some of the crash debris sites, the FBI claimed it correctly had identified all 18 hijackers. A short time later the number was amended to 19. A few days later the names were followed with photos of the men blamed for the terrorism that claimed nearly 3,000 lives in New York City, Washington and Pennsylvania. Incredibly fast intelligence work – some of the information coming from the National Ground Intelligence Center in Charlottesville, Va. – enabled investigators to tie the attack to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network.
While there is no doubt the hijackings were the work of al-Qaida, questions remain about whether some of the hijackers actually were the men the FBI identified. Last year that doubt crept into the highest levels of law enforcement after a series of sensational news reports aired by the BBC, ABC and CNN, along with several British newspapers, cast suspicion on whether the FBI got it right. The reports suggested at least six of the men the FBI claimed were hijackers on the planes were in fact alive. THEY didn't survive the crashes, of course, but NEVER BOARDED THE PLANES.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33059

How could anyone board Flight 11 or Flight 77
when there were NO SUCH FLIGHTS to board?

"There wasn't a single piece of the jet to be seen anywhere."
-- Brigadier General Arthur F. "Chip" Diehl III

All the same,
the
FBI denies mix-up
of 9-11 terrorists
Stands by original list even though some ID'd are still alive.

That's my story.
Oh, that's my story.
Well, I ain't got a witness and I can't prove it.
But that's my story and I'm stickin' to it."
-- Colin Raye
-- Robert S. Mueller III

[seatnineb]

93. Ong seat.

Yeah....

Not only is she immune to the mace.......

Ong is also sitting in a phantom seat.

Wonder if Ron will be able to enlighten us.

Betty Ong says she is in seat 3R(jump seat).

I cant seem to find it on this American Airlines diagram.

[RH]

75. Answer please.

Was there supposed to be some sort of reason to suppose that the generation of the passenger list relies upon ACARS?

Was that the argument?

If so how about a reference to something to that effect?

[DulceDecorum]

77. If and when I damn well feel like it

71. Reminder Sun Dec-12-04 05:45 PM Posted by DULCEDECORUM
72. and apart from all that crap, Sun Dec-12-04 05:52 PM Posted by RH
75. Answer please Sun Dec-12-04 05:58 PM ans 71 Posted by RH

Truth Suppression Technique Number 6
66. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

Time lapse between Post #71 and first demand: 7 minutes.
Time lapse between Post #71 and second demand: 13 minutes.

PROPER RESPONSE:
You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 - hit and run)?
http://www.universalway.org/Foreign/truthsuppression.html

[RH]

80. Huh?

What is that if not avoiding the issue?

:think:

[Make7]

83. Truth Suppression?

"Truth Suppression Technique Number 6
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint." - DulceDecorum
__________

How can it be hit and run if RH continues to respond to your posts?
How can an answer that hasn't been given be ignored?

-Make7

[DulceDecorum]

92. See post #69

and please recall that when RH is asked a question,
his "answers" usually consist of epithets and evasions.

In Post #23 of the original thread,
DulceDecorum said:
Since the plane was unable to send the ACARS data to the BTS,
which is something that is highly computerized and happens automatically,
then how the bloody blazes did the plane manage to send the airline passenger manifest data?

In Post #30 of the original thread
RH replied:
According to what does any data proceed directly from an aircraft to BTS?
Where did you get that from?

RH received his first reply -- of several
in Post # 34, namely:
According to the 911 Commission

From that point onwards,
RH has repeated and reiterated the SAME QUESTION
until readers of this forum have been forced to conclude that
it is not a factual answer that RH is aiming for.
See Post # 75 0n this thread where
RH sneers:
Was there supposed to be some sort of reason to suppose that the generation of the passenger list relies upon ACARS?
Was that the argument?
If so how about a reference to something to that effect?

Rh is demonstrating the disinformation strategy known as:

Truth Suppression Technique Number 6
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint."

RH is doing this to distract from the fact that he has been utterly and completely unable to answer a question put to him
EVEN WHEN THE ANSWERS WERE PROVIDED WITHIN THE SAME POST.

In Post #71 of the previous thread,
DulceDecorum said:
RH, please explain this BTS data on Flight 77
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=26095#26212

In Post # 92
DulceDecorum asked:
was the plane ever even on the runway?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=26095#26256

Make7 asks:
How can it be hit and run if RH continues to respond to your posts?
How can an answer that hasn't been given be ignored?

Truth Suppression Technique Number 19
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
<snip>
Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven distinct traits:
3) They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussion in the particular public arena. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
http://www.universalway.org/Foreign/truthsuppression.html

PS.
Make7
please remind RH that there are those us who would LOVE to be given a opportunity to "ignore" the answer to the question he is in the process of evading.

[Make7]

97. We are both asking you the same basic question.

Why does the plane need to send the passenger names somewhere to generate a passenger list?

If the 911 commission says it does, perhaps you might be so kind as to provide a quote and possibly even a link. Thanks.

Won't you please just tell us why the plane needs to generate a list of the names of the passengers and transmit it to either the airline, the BTS, or anywhere in order for the airline to come up with a passenger list.

Thank you in advance for answering,
Make7

P.S. I thought the discussion was about AA11.

[DulceDecorum]

102. Answer to RH and Make7

Welcome to the American Airlines Help Center
For more information, or to contact a specific department, please select the name from the list on the left.
http://www.aa.com/apps/utility/contactAA/ContactAAHome.jhtml

On the previous thread, in
Post #28
RH says:
I would imagine that the information is stored until such time that a full set of data is ready to proceed to BTS.
Rather than lose sleep over it why not ask the Airline?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=26095#26148

Go.
Ask the airline.
What are you waiting for?

[Make7]

113. Thank you.

I knew you wouldn't disappoint me.

:) Make7

[DulceDecorum]

69. ARINC, ACARS, & the BTS

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=26095&mesg_id=26270&page=

RH says:
No mention at all of BTS with regard to ACARS for that matter.
That notion seems to have arisen solely from the imagination of dulcedecorum.

There are none so blind as will nazi.
-- Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian
http://www.bettybowers.com/nosin.html

[John Doe II]

103. You don't care

to know what the names of the 92 aboard are?
I'm a bit surprised by your lack of interest but anyway.
I'm still looking for somebody trying to answer my questions: I'd assume it shouldn't be too difficult. Or is it? Then why?

[Abe Linkman]

38. As we can all see, you're certainly full of 'em. Who took the photo?.

It does appear that Nico's favorite (how exactly did he put it?) ___,
is full of them.

[John Doe II]

106. About red herrings

Mind explaining what asking about the definite flight mainfest of AA 11 has anything to do with red herrings?

[John Doe II]

107. I'd be interested in RH's findings too!

[DulceDecorum]

35. American Airlines refuses to talk.

It is argued here that the information AA did not want to "leak" to the public was the same information that AA REFUSES TO REVEAL TO THE FAMILIES OF THE VICTIMS and to the public in general since 9/11. Such information includes:

(a) Names of ground personnel who saw off the passengers and crew at the departure gate on 9/11 and could testify on what they saw;

(b) Authentified copies of the flight manifests, which would show the names of the alleged hijackers and of the passengers;

(c) Copies of boarding cards, which would show the names of the alleged hijackers and of the passengers and confirm their seat numbers;

(d) Computer listing of the boarding times of individual passengers and hijackers;

(e) Positive evidence that the aircraft which left the airport was indeed the aircraft which later crashed into the known target (aircraft serial number, tail number, engine serial numbers, black boxes, etc.);

(f) Names and contacts of AA personnel who reportedly communicated by cellphones with crew or passengers on the hijacked aircraft and could publicly testify on these conversations.

The present author asked both American and United Airlines to provide some of the above information. Both airlines declined to provide the information and referred the author to the FBI for all such data. The last attempt to obtain information from American Airlines (a letter to AA spokesman Marty Heires of October 6, 2004) did not elicit any response at all. Neither airline, however, justified in its answer its refusal on a legal restraining order or on the need to protect the privacy of the families of the victims or of its personnel. The author has not come across any Justice Department order, or any legal ruling, that prohibits airlines from releasing the above information and airline personnel to communicate freely with the media on matters relating to 9/11. However, Tim Doke, in his email to the present author claimed that the FBI "limited what we could say publicly through the media" and that "employees who were in contact with the terrorists on the ground... could not talk to reporters... under the FBI's restrictions."

A spokesperson of the FBI, asked why the agency has not publicized the original flight manifests in support of its allegation against 19 named hijackers, did not maintain that the FBI or the airlines were legally prohibited from disclosing the original flight manifest. She simply referred the present author to the airlines for such information.

The airlines’ apparently uncoerced refusal to produce the above information suggests that this refusal is prompted by their interest to prevent their employees, the families of victims and the public from knowing the full truth on the events of 9/11,
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DAV411A.html

Incidentally,
One N334AA aka "Flagship Vermont" is a DC-7
whose nose resides within the National Air and Space Museum.
It was manufactured in 1956
and has the serial number 45106/735 or 45106/738.
Apparently it flew for about nine years before being beheaded in 1962.
I have not yet been able to determine
the circumstances under which the dismemberment took place.
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=N334AA&distinct_entry=true

According to the FAA,
yet another and better known alias,
the Boeing 767-223,
serial number 22332,
was manufactured in 1987,
and given an airworthiness certificate on 04/10/1987.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=334aa
However,
it was only placed on the CIVIL AVIATION REGISTRY on 01/06/2000.
This means that for 13 long years it was ..... WHERE????
WHERDY GO??

[DulceDecorum]

40. Math error in Post #35

Incidentally,
One N334AA aka "Flagship Vermont" is a DC-7
whose nose resides within the National Air and Space Museum.
It was manufactured in 1956
and has the serial number 45106/735 or 45106/738.
Apparently it flew for about SIX years
before being beheaded in 1962
(when it was only NINE years old.)
I have not yet been able to determine
the circumstances under which the dismemberment took place.
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=...

According to the FAA,
yet another and better known alias,
the Boeing 767-223,
serial number 22332,
was manufactured in 1987,
and given an airworthiness certificate on 04/10/1987.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=...
However,
it was only placed on the CIVIL AVIATION REGISTRY on 01/06/2000.
This means that for 13 long years it was ..... WHERE????
WHERDY GO??

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Make7]

46. Could the airline generate a passenger list from:

"(c) Copies of boarding cards, which would show the names of the alleged hijackers and of the passengers and confirm their seat numbers;

(d) Computer listing of the boarding times of individual passengers and hijackers;
__________

Could this information be used to generate a passenger list?

-Make7

[DulceDecorum]

48. YOU tell us then,

HOW does an airline generate a passenger list?

[RH]

53. Perhaps they do it

by collecting the names of passengers.

Why do the carriers have boarding cards if not to generate a passenger list?

It is odd to suppose that it would have anything to do with ACARS, an in flight system. As a matter of common sense a passenger list is required before departure, in case of an unfortunate event on the
runway.

[DulceDecorum]

55. Get Shorty

In this movie one of the characters boards a plane and it is delayed on the runway.
He opts to leave and sit in the lounge while the situation is rectified.
He gets drunk.
The plane takes off without him.
It crashes and burns at the end of the runway.
He decides to remain in hiding
and let his wife collect the insurance money for his death.

The only way this scenario is possible is if
the plane does NOT have ACARS.

If the plane collects data manually and sends it the old fashioned way,
then he can away with it
since a boarding pass was issued and he did clear the gate.
That data has been recorded by the ground crew
and it is very reasonable to assume that
once he got on board, he remained on board.
But if that plane has ACARS,
he could NEVER get away with it.

As a matter of fact, he might even come under severe scrutiny.

After the gates are shut and before the plane takes off,
the flight attendants count the number of passengers.
If you have flown, then you have seen them do it.
They also check up on the seats.
You are not going to be able to sneak into First Class
without them knowing that you are not supposed to be there
and asking you to leave.
They count more than once
and double check their results if they have a discrepancy.
Sometimes you will see them go over and talk to somebody
and sometimes that person gets to leave the plane.
Most of the time,
that person gets to stay but they have to show some papers.

One of the flight attendants then goes to the cockpit.
The pilot receives a passenger count and he inputs data into the ACARS Flight Management Computer.

The ACARS computer sends the passenger and cargo manifest data
to the airline' operations center.
The ACARS Flight Management Computer
then requests certain data from the airline's operation center.
It checks to ensure that the plane data and the airline data tally.
It is usually at this point when a fake boarding pass would be discovered
since the airline would have no record of such a character
having ever paid for any such a ticket.

Along with the basic functions that automatically generate downlinked messages to the user's operations center, the systems also allow an aircraft's crew to request and receive the following types of automatically addressed messages:
ATIS
Pre-departure clearances
Flight plan updates
Weather data
Takeoff calculations
Gate/departure/takeoff/en route delay reports
Diversion and emergency reports
Engine and maintenance reports (manual)
Position report (manual)
Passenger lists
Free text messages
http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/br/ACARS_Data_Link.html?smenu=108

Then the Flight management Computer does some calculations concerning the weight and the length of the runway and the wind speed and direction
and then tells the pilot how fast he needs to go to take-off
and also how much fuel he needs to successfully complete his journey.

The pilot checks to ensure that all is well and then prepares for take-off.
AFTER the passenger manifest has been sent, received, and checked via ACARS.

But I don't think that ACARS allows for passengers
who board the plane AFTER the doors have been shut
and the plane has pushed back from the gate
and the plane is taxiing toward the runway.



But what the heck,
the passengers of N334AA embarked on a flight of the imagination.
The cellphone calls prove that.

Aviation Today
Capt. E.R. Hanson Jr.
As commonplace as PEDs have become, there are several places where the privately-owned variety just will not work well—for example, inside the aluminum tubes we call airplanes. Yes, a passenger can get a signal with his personal phone at seat 4A while the aircraft is on the ground. He might even be able to maintain the signal during the initial takeoff and climb out. But as the aircraft groundspeed increases, the cell technology will fail to switch receiver towers rapidly enough to maintain a continuous receive/transmit handhold, and the passenger’s cell phone will drop the signal.
The dropped signal is one reason not to use a personal phone in a moving aircraft. Another, more serious reason is that the phone may produce harmonic interference with the aircraft avionics equipment. Seat 4A isn’t just a comfortable first-class accommodation; it and the rest of the forward compartment are directly over an electronics equipment bay in the airplane’s belly. Seat 44D is no better a location to use personal phones, for the aircraft’s aluminum skin is veined with cables and wiring bundles, front to back.
The barely detectable electronic pollution that a personal cell phone or other PED produces has a short path to the sensitive navigation, communication and autoflight computers that make modern, high-altitude, high-speed air travel possible. Once the signal is inside the black boxes, it is anyone’s guess what the aircraft will do. The net result is aircraft avionics are potentially compromised.
http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/av/show_mag.cgi?
pub=av&mon=0901&file=0901productfocus.htm

[Make7]

58. Passenger count

"...The pilot receives a passenger count and he inputs data into the ACARS Flight Management Computer.

The ACARS computer sends the passenger and cargo manifest data
to the airline' operations center.
The ACARS Flight Management Computer
then requests certain data from the airline's operation center.
It checks to ensure that the plane data and the airline data tally..." - DulceDecorum
__________

So are you saying that if the passenger count on the plane is the same as the number of passengers calculated by the airline's operation center, then they don't check anyone's boarding pass or ID on board the plane?

-Make7

[DulceDecorum]

60. Did you ever fly on a plane BEFORE 911?

Have you flown on a plane SINCE 911?

What do you have to do JUST BEFORE you enter the plane?

We are not talking about a hayride.

[Make7]

61. Do you always answer a question with a question?

To answer yours:

Yes.

Yes.

Give an airline employee a boarding pass.

[DulceDecorum]

67. What do you think?

[RH]

68. I think

you answer a question with a question to avoid answering the original question.

[DulceDecorum]

74. Who asked YOU?

:evilgrin:

[Make7]

70. Errors and contradictions.

I think that the argument being made to "prove" that all passenger lists must be "fake" (in the original article) is that different media outlets had lists that had errors and contradictions.

I think that your posts on these two threads have errors and contradictions, therefore it is reasonable to assume (following the logic of the original article) that your information is "fake" as well.

I also think that the original article has errors and contradictions. So using the author's own logic, his research must be "fake" too.

-Make7

[DulceDecorum]

73. The passengers -- according to CNN

Let us see what
the Social Security Death Index
http://ssdi.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi
has to say about the passengers of Flight 11.

American Airlines #11
Boeing 767
7:45 am departed Boston for Los Angeles
8:45 am crashed into North Tower of the World Trade Center

Satam Al Suqami
Waleed M. Alshehri ALIVE
Wail Alshehri ALIVE
Mohamed Atta
Abdulaziz Alomari ALIVE

FLIGHT 11
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html

CREW
John Ogonowski, 52, Nothing found
First Officer Thomas McGuinness, 42 Nothing found
Barbara Arestegui, 38 Nothing found
Jeffrey Collman Nothing found
Sara Low, 28 27 Oct 1972 -- 11 Sep 2001
Karen Martin 6 people with that name died in 2001. None in September.
Kathleen Nicosia Nothing found
Betty Ong, 45 ELIZABETH ONG 11 Feb 1909 -- 05 May 2001
Jean Roger, 24 JOAN P ROGER 23 Aug 1940 -- 20 Apr 2001
Dianne Snyder, 42 DIANNE B SNYDER 06 Jul 1945 -- 25 Oct 2001
Madeline Sweeney, 35 MADELINE A SWEENEY17 Dec 1916 -- 09 Dec 2001 (MARY F SWEENEY 01 Jan 1929-11 Sep 2001)


PASSENGERS
Anna Williams Allison, 48 Nothing found
David Angell, 54 23 Mar 1960 -- 25 May 2001
Lynn Angell, 45 Nothing found
Seima Aoyama Nothing found
Myra Aronson, 52 Nothing found
Christine Barbuto, 32 Nothing found
Berry Berenson, 53 (BIRDIE BERENSON 15 Mar 1904 -- 22 Aug 2001)
Carolyn Beug, 48 Nothing found
Carol Bouchard, 43, (CAROLE J BOUCHARD 11 Jun 1940 -- 10 Jun 2001)
Robin Caplin Nothing Found
Neilie Casey, 32, Nothing found
Jeffrey Coombs, 42 18 Sep 1958 -- 11 Sep 2001
Tara Creamer, 30 30 Nov 1970 -- 11 Sep
Thelma Cuccinello, 71 THELMA R CUCCINELLO 01 Feb 1930 -- 11 Sep 2001
Patrick Currivan Nothing Found
Andrew Curry Green Nothing Found
Brian Dale, 43 BRIAN P DALE 23 Oct 1957 -- 11 Sep 2001
David DiMeglio (DAVID M DIMEGLIO 08 Feb 1967 -- 01 Mar 2002)
Donald Ditullio, 49 (DONALD D DITULLIO 03 Jun 1949-22 Jul 1996 DONALD DITULLIO 17 Mar 1909-09 Feb 2001 )
Albert Dominguez, 66 (ALBERT J DOMINGUEZ 12 Jul 1929-01 Jan 2001)
Alex Filipov, 70 ALEXANDER M FILIPOV 11 Apr 1931 -- 11 Sep 2001
Carol Flyzik, 40 CAROL A FLYZIK 13 Mar 1961 -- 11 Sep 2001
Paul Friedman, 45 PAUL J FRIEDMAN 13 Aug 1956 -- 11 Sep 2001
Karleton D.B. Fyfe, 31 KARLETON D FYFE 10 Feb 1970 -- 11 Sep 2001
Peter Gay, 54 Nothing Found
Linda George, 27 LINDA M GEORGE 11 Jun 1974 -- 11 Sep 2001
Edmund Glazer, 41 Nothing Found
Lisa Fenn Gordenstein, 41 Nothing Found
Paige Farley Hackel, 46 Nothing Found
Peter Hashem, 40, PETER P HASHEM 20 Mar 1961 -- 11 Sep 2001
Robert Hayes, 37 ROBERT E HAYES 09 Sep 1930 -- 11 Sep 2001
Ted Hennessy, 35 EDWARD R HENNESSY 01 Mar 1966 -- 11 Sep 2001
John Hofer (JOHN HOFER 10 Sep 1939 -- 24 Jul 2001)
Cora Holland, 52 Nothing Found
Nicholas Humber, 60 (NICHOLAS HUMBER 09 May 1882 -- Oct 1968)
John Jenkins (JOHN H JENKINS 16 Oct 1945 -- 04 Sep 2001)
Charles Jones, 48 (CHARLES L JONES 14 Jan 1960 -- 18 Sep 2001)
Robin Kaplan, 33, Nothing Found
Barbara Keating, 72 BARBARA A KEATING 23 Dec 1928 -- 11 Sep 2001 (PAUL H KEATING 04 Sep 1963 -- 11 Sep 2001)
David Kovalcin, 42 Nothing found
Judy Larocque, 50, Nothing Found
Jude Larson, 31 Nothing Found
Natalie Larson (NATALIE E LARSON 06 Jan 1950 -- 09 Sep 2000)
N. Janis Lasden, 46 Nothing Found
Daniel John Lee, 34 Nothing found
Daniel C. Lewin, 31 Nothing Found
Susan MacKay, 44 SUSAN K MACKAY 06 Jun 1937 -- 12 Sep 2001)
Chris Mello, 25 Nothing Found
Jeff Mladenik, 43 Nothing Found
Antonio Montoya Nothing Found
Carlos Montoya CARLOS M MONTOYA 01 Mar 1965 -- 11 Sep 2001
Laura Lee Morabito, 34 LAURA L MORABITO 04 Oct 1966 -- 11 Sep 2001
Mildred Naiman MILDRED NAIMAN 24 Mar 1920 -- 11 Sep 2001
Laurie Neira LAURIE NEIRA 08 Dec 1952 -- 11 Sep 2001
Renee Newell, 37 Nothing Found
Jacqueline Norton, 60 (JACQUELINE M NORTON 26 Mar 1923 -- 02 Jan 1996)
Robert Norton, 82 ROBERT G NORTON 11 May 1916 -- 11 Sep 2001
Jane Orth, 49 Nothing Found
Thomas Pecorelli, 31 THOMAS PECORELLI 08 Oct 1970 -- 11 Sep 2001
Sonia Morales Puopolo, 58 Nothing Found
David Retik Nothing Found
Philip Rosenzweig Nothing Found
Richard Ross, 58 RICHARD ROSS 29 Apr 1943 -- 11 Sep 2001
Jessica Sachs, 22 Nothing Found
Rahma Salie, 28 Nothing Found
Heather Smith, 30 (HEATHER L SMITH 09 Aug 1971 -- 06 Jun 2001 )
Douglas Stone, 54 Nothing Found
Xavier Suarez Nothing found
Michael Theodoridis, 32 Nothing found
James Trentini, 65 JAMES A TRENTINI 24 May 1936 -- 11 Sep 2001
Mary Trentini, 67 MARY B TRENTINI 11 Feb 1934 -- 11 Sep 2001
Mary Wahlstrom, 75, MARY A WAHLSTROM 19 Apr 1923 -- 11 Sep 2001
Kenneth Waldie, 46 KENNETH E WALDIE 13 May 1955 -- 11 Sep 2001
John Wenckus, 46 (JOHN WENCKUS 11 Sep 1888 -- Mar 1964)
Candace Lee Williams, 20 (CANDACE L WILLIAMS 10 Jan 1986 -- 23 Sep 2000)
Christopher Zarba, 47 Nothing Found

So,
who did we leave out?

[DulceDecorum]

76. WHAT errors? WHAT contradictions?

Make7 says:
I think that your posts on these two threads have errors and contradictions, therefore it is reasonable to assume (following the logic of the original article) that your information is "fake" as well.

Point them out
and then,
CORRECT THEM.

Truth Suppression Technique Number 13

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

[Make7]

82. ERROR: post #35, CONTRADICTION: pointed out in post #10

[John Doe II]

86. Point out

errors and contradiction in the original article and besides have the kindness and give us the definite passenger manifests.
The question is very clear and simple and all this running around can't cover up that nobody answered the general question.

[Abe Linkman]

87. I don't believe a B757 crashed at the Pentagon, do YOU? If so...

I think many of us would be interested in your theory of how that happened...considering that the available evidence found at the Pentagon is inconsistent with a large airliner having crashed there. So, if it's your contention that FL 77 DID crash, explain what happened to the wings on the B757.

Thanks.

[k-robjoe]

88. Hello?

You´re not going to start up an argument with John Doe II about this?
Did you post on the wrong thread? ( And to the wrong guy? )

[Abe Linkman]

90. I don't start arguments w/anyone - but, thanks for pointing out my mistake

Are you ASKING me or TELLING me?
Either way -
Apologies to John Doe. I meant my response for message #82 ("Make 7").

[k-robjoe]

91. OK , ( I misunderstood )

But can´t we just say that you´ll take up this with Make7 later on?
I´m curious to hear about the errors and contradictions in the original post.

I never saw the word "fake" in the original post for example. Is that a contradiction? That he never wrote the word fake, yet Make7 knows that he was thinking about it all the time?

[Make7]

95. I was taking about the article linked to in the original post.

The title of the article is: Media published fake passenger lists for American Airlines Flight 11

[k-robjoe]

99. Got you

So the error was talking about errors and contradictions in John Doe IIs posts (which were asking questions), when you meant the article he linked to to show where his questions came from.(The article was making claims.)

[Make7]

111. I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

I didn't say there were errors and contradictions in John Doe IIs posts. I think he and I just disagree on the methods and conclusions in Gerard Holmgren's article.

When I said the original article, I meant Gerard Holmgren's article. Perhaps I could have worded it more clearly, but I thought using the word article was enough to convey my meaning. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding.

-Make7

[Make7]

96. The subject of this thread is the flight manifest of AA11.

There are plenty of threads about AA77 if that is what you wish to discuss.

-Make7

[John Doe II]

108. You're welcome!

[Make7]

94. A different way to look at the lists.

Just one example from the original article:

"One can speculate that CNN has published the names of all 87 innocent victims, and deleted the names of the 5 hijackers for sensitivity reasons.

If so, why is said that American Airlines released a "partial list" ?" - Gerard Holmgren

Ummm...because American Airlines did only release a partial list. In his own article he quotes the Guardian: "Some families asked the airline not to include their loved ones' names: these do not appear."

He continues:
"For the moment, lets give CNN the benefit of the doubt and assume this to be a complete list (in contradiction to what they wrote) of the 87 innocents alleged to be on board..." - Gerard Holmgren

CNN said that it's sources released partial lists - there is no contradiction to what they wrote.
__________

On to the list:

I find it interesting that he starts with the CNN list, which is one of the ones with the most errors, and uses that as the list to compare the others to.

If he had started by noticing that the MSNBC, the PBS, and the Boston Globe updated (presumably corrected) list are all the same and compared the others to them, perhaps he would have come to different conclusions. For example:

USA today is missing one name: Iskandar
(This list is almost identical to the MSNBC, PBS and Globe lists.)

The Washington Post is missing two names: Iskandar and Vamsikrishna
But has three extra: Robin Caplin, Jude Larson, and Natalie Larson

CNN is missing three names: Iskandar, Vamsikrishna, and Booms
But has three extra: Robin Caplin, Jude Larson, and Natalie Larson
(This list is almost identical to the Washington Post list.)

If we assume that Robin Caplin is really Robin Kaplan, then we have two extra names: Jude and Natalie Larson (on two of the lists). How did their names get on these lists? I don't know - I don't work for CNN or the Washington Post, the question should be directed at them.

Surprisingly, the list I posted (see Post #21) matches the MSNBC, PBS, and Boston Globe lists. (With the exception of the spelling of Peter Hashem / el-Hachem.)

It's a different way to look at it. Of course Gerard Holmgren is free to look at it however he wants. And I'm free to disagree with his methods and findings. And you are free to make your own comparisons and come to your own conclusions.
__________

When I made the comment about errors and contradictions, my point was that the errors and contradictions between the passenger lists published by the different media sources were being used to make the case that the lists were "fake". To discount all the lists because two or three names were missing from a few, a couple had two extra, and there were a few spelling discrepancies is not a very strong argument. (Especially when you consider the fact that the author pointed out that the airline did not release all the names AND he states that the airline is the only credible primary source.) But if we are to assume that only information with no errors or contradictions is acceptable, then should we apply that to the research in the article as well?

-Make7

[DulceDecorum]

101. Paging FBI Agent James K. Lechner

This document was lodged in the US District Court of Maine by FBI Agent, James K. Lechner. It details the property found in Mohamed Atta's car and his bags that did not make it onto the flight out of Boston.

Page 10 of 13:
d.) review of the passenger manifest for AA11 reveals that a passenger by the name of MOHAM(first name apparently abbreviated) ATTA ("Atta") was on AA11 and was assigned seat 8D. In addition a passenger by the name of ABDUL ALOMARI("Alomari") was on AA11 and was assigned seat 8G. Subsequent to the departure of AA11, American Airlines personnel at Logan discovered two bags that had been bound for transfer to AA11 but had not been loaded onto the flight prior to its departure. These two bags, a green Travel Gear bag bearing the American Airlines tag number US138530 and a black Travelpro bag bearing American Airlines number US 138529, were checked to passenger Atta. These two bags were checked on September 11, 2001, at Portland Maine and were marked to be transferred at Logan from an inbound flight from Portland to AA11.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents/fbiaffidavit10.htm

Mr. Lechner sir,
could you please tell us
WHERE
you got this passenger manifest?

According to this executive memo,



a passenger manifest was obtained at 11:26AM.

American spokesman John Hotard angrily denied any truth to the gun account in the memo, saying he has no idea where the FAA got the information. He also noted that other things in the Flight 11 summary, such as times, are wildly inaccurate. Families of September 11 also wants Congress to investigate reports that another FAA-banned item, pepper spray, was used on Flight 11.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26641

In another development, the employee confirmed reports that the terrorists on Flight 11 sprayed passengers with mace or pepper spray. She says one of the terrorists seated in the last row of the business class section pulled back the curtain and sprayed the noxious gas in the direction of passengers in coach, apparently to disable them and discourage them from trying to stop the hijacking.
She says two of the hijackers sat in first class – seats 1G and 1H – and three sat in business class. Atta sat in seat 8D.
An American spokeswoman in Dallas would not comment on the developments, stressing that all American employees have been ordered not to talk to the press.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24596

Summary:
We were told there were 81 passengers on Flight 11.
We were told this on the afternoon of Sept 11th. Not much time for investigation.
Not all the passengers names were published in the list that was given out that day.
People assumed that some of the missing names were the hijackers.
Now all 81 names have been published - they DO NOT include the names of the 5 hijackers.
So if they really existed at all, how did they get on the plane?
And if they got on the plane, how do we know they were on the plane? And where did the seat numbers come from?
http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/institutional_analysis/168124.html

Jeffrey Coombs, a securities analyst for Compaq, was not among those initially on the American Airlines flight 11 passenger list. But it turned out that was because he carried on his luggage. By the time his parents arrived at his Abington home at about 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, the airline confirmed he was on the flight.
<snip>
So far, he (the father, Charles Coombs) is not impressed with the FBI. At a family briefing held at Logan Airport Wednesday, he said investigators were not able to answer any serious questions. He said many family members walked out of the meeting.
http://www.capecodonline.com/special/terror/bournefamily14.htm

Mr. Lechner, sir,
you will recall that
American Airlines has had other planes crash
previous to September 11, 2001.
Allow us to draw your attention to Flight 1420.
http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/crash060299/
Flight 1420 crashed in in Little Rock on June 1, 1999.
And we are well aware that AA employees have been known to receive company approval for screwing the passengers.
http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/crash060299/B1xcrash10.html

Mr. Lechner, sir,
we are curious in the manner in which
the FBI has violated federal law
insofar as concerns
the Federal Family Assistance Plan For Aviation Disasters.
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/spc0001.htm

We know that
United Airlines OFFICIALLY released
the NUMBER OF PASSENGERS aboard Flight 93 and Flight 175.
http://www.tw.united.com/press/pressroom/2001/us_0911c.html
We know that United Airlines OFFICIALLY released
the NAMES AND IDENTITIES of those aboard Flight 93 and Flight 175.
http://www.tw.united.com/press/pressroom/2001/us_0912c.html
http://www.tw.united.com/press/pressroom/2001/september.html

But we have heard remarkably little
DIRECTLY
from American Airlines.

FORT WORTH, Texas – American Airlines confirmed today that it lost two aircraft in tragic incidents this morning. American said the flights were Flight 11, a Boeing 767 en route from Boston to Los Angeles with 81 passengers, nine flight attendants and two pilots; and Flight 77, a Boeing 757 operating from Washington Dulles to Los Angeles with 58 passengers, four flight attendants and two pilots.
Because of the heightened security due to the nature of today’s events, American said it is working closely with U.S. government authorities and will not release more information at this time
http://www.adityabansod.com/terror2001/AMR%20Corp_%20Homepage.htm

We have read the
Statement of Gerard P. Arpey
to the National Commission
on Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States
January 27, 2004
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/9-11_commission/040127-arpey.htm

And now, Mr. Lechner, sir,
we draw your attention to
The Perplexing Puzzle of the Published Passenger Lists
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR110A.print.html
and also to the fact that there were
No Arabs on Flight 77:
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm
Part II -The Passengers
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/07/article_tro_flight77.htm

Mr. Lechner, sir,
you have claimed,
within an affidavit
that you have reviewed the passenger manifest for AA11.
Sir, please give us
the name of the agency,
or the identity of the persons
who gave you the passenger manifest of Flight 11.

[John Doe II]

105. Good points!

I'd like to add Robert Bonner who claimed in January 2004 before the Independent Commission that within an hour after the crash he figured out the 19 names of the suspected hijackers by reviewing the flight manifests.

[John Doe II]

104. Make7

It's one thing to discuss the method of Holmgren though I think it's abosultely accepatble method to use several media accounts and add the names together (keep in mind that it's not the problem that on some lists names are missing. The problem is the eight names too many).
Leaving this aside my questions in post 1 are cristal clear and I really don't think that it helps if you add another list. I'm not interested at all in adding anything to the confussion.

On the contrary: I'd like to look through the confusion and finally after three years see the definite flight manifest.
Is this too much conspiracy theory to take??

Why is nobody able around here to present it?
Why is even somebody here who doesn't seem to bother about the question but still doesn't stop posting in this thread??

[DulceDecorum]

110. I think

that the poster who is not interested in the thread and yet continues to post
has gone bye bye.

:kick:

Time for a :tinfoilhat: :grouphug: :toast:

[Make7]

112. Catch-22?

The difficulty with the media is they rush to get stories out without getting all their facts straight. The specific problem with the flight manifest for Flight 11 is the incomplete list that American Airlines put out. The media tried to fill in the blanks, sometimes very unsuccessfully. Sometimes not.

I wrote how I thought that the lists (from the article) should be compared, and my conclusions after comparing them. I think the list I posted is who was on that plane, but since the airlines won't publicly release all the names - we can never be certain.

What source of information would you accept a flight manifest from?

-Make7

[DulceDecorum]

114. Number 22.

United Airlines Press Releases
http://www.united.ca/press/pressroom/2001/september.html

Make7 asks:
What source of information would you accept a flight manifest from?

"But the only credible, official source for such information is the airline passenger list, and the only credible source for obtaining this information is the airline itself, or authorities and media to which the airline makes it available."
-- Gerard Holmgren

22. See AAL response to the Commission's February 3, 2004, requests, Mar. 15, 2004; AAL record, Dispatch Environmental Control/Weekly Flight Summary for Flight 11, Sept. 11, 2001;AAL report,"Flight Attendant Jump Seat Locations During Takeoff And Flight Attendant Typical Cabin Positions During Start of Cabin Service,"
undated; AAL report,"Passenger Name List, Flight 11/September 11," undated.
http://911.gnu-designs.com/Notes_1.html

AA should tell us who was on the plane,
heck,
its not like they hold passenger information sacred or something.

Saturday, April 10, 2004;
American Airlines revealed yesterday that it authorized the release of 1.2 million records containing private passenger data to the government and that the information wound up in the hands of four companies competing for a federal security contract.
<snip>
The TSA requested that American provide the agency with passenger records for a security project, and American authorized Airline Automation Inc. to comply. But instead the contractor gave the records to four companies competing to win a security contract with the agency: HNC Software, Infoglide Software, Ascent Technology and Lockheed Martin. David Coburn, a lawyer for Airline Automation, said the company turned over the passenger records to the companies as the TSA required, and that the companies signed non-disclosure agreements.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A720-2004Apr9.html

[John Doe II]

115. Poor media

I find it rather hard to believe that journalists simply invented names (eight) just to fill out an incomplete list so that in the end every newspaper has basically its own passenger list.
And it's not only the journalists that have problems with AA 11's manifest: The FBI has trouble as well and they wronly suspect four persons as being hijackers on 911. (Until today no explanation for this neither)

Strange passenger manifest!
And it's not a typical American Airline problem: Why then is there no problem with the passenger manifest of AA 77?
And am I the only one who expected the Commission with bringing some light into this?

[DulceDecorum]

29. HOW

did the airplane send the passenger manifest data to the airline?

"But the only credible, source for such information is the airline passenger list, and the only credible source for obtaining this information is the airline itself, or authorities and media to which the airline makes it available."
-- Gerard Holmgren

Re: “Aviation Security Screening Records” 68 Fed. Reg. 2,101
(January 15, 2003).
Long concerned about the diminution of privacy in the electronic age and the increased use of surveillance technologies by the government, the ACLU urges the Department of Transportation (DOT) to abandon its plan to establish a system of records known as “Aviation Security Screening Records” (ASSR). The Federal Register notice announcing DOT’s intent to establish a system of records under the Privacy Act (DOT notice) describes a database that would include digital dossiers on airline passengers who are not suspected of a crime or in any way shown to be linked to terrorism.
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11909&c=130#_ftnref3

Since the DOT is only now (January 15, 2003) seeking to establish these dossiers,
it is reasonable to assume
that the airlines were not routinely reporting this data
before and on September 11, 2001.

HOWEVER,
the airline have always known just which passengers had boarded the plane.
That is why we cannot understand what happened to Flight 11 and Flight 77.

[Make7]

50. Does it need to?

"How did the airplane send the passenger manifest data to the airline?" - DulceDecorum

Does it need to in order for the airline to generate a passenger list?
__________

How does the airplane get the names of the passengers?

I have never had an airline employee ask me my name, or ask me to produce any form of identification, while actually on board a plane.

If the names of the passengers are not collected on the plane, why does the airline need to get the names from the plane to generate a passenger list?

If the names of the passengers are collected on the plane, what method do they use to collect this data?

-Make7

[RH]

27. which would therfore explain

why a passenger list is not released.

:toast:

[DulceDecorum]

30. If the names of the passengers were not released

then
how do we know the names of the passengers?

[RH]

32. Who said

we know the names of the passengers?

John Doe II says we dont know the names.

Argue it out with him.

[DulceDecorum]

36. How soon they forget......

Mon Dec-06-04 11:28 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=26095#26261

RH now says:
Who said we know the names of the passengers?
John Doe II says we dont know the names.
Argue it out with him.

We do NOT know the names of the passengers.
Or even if there were any in the first place.
And the BTS doesn't seem to think the plane ever left the ground.

So what the heck caused the collapse of the WTC?

[John Doe II]

116. Hope again

The questions still unanswered I post them again. Maybe this time we find the definitive manifest .....

[spooked911]

117. Yes, it is all very strange. Particularly Dulce's post #35 where

AA clearly does not want to divulge the info for no apparent reason.

So what reasons could there be for not giving out the info?

1) the flights did not really exist-- they were a scam, a sham, a hoax, a cruel trick

2) the flights really existed, but:

2a) the airlines forgot to keep good records that day

2b) the airlines have the records but don't want to give them out because:

2bi) there is incriminating evidence there about the terrorists that the general public can't know:

2bi-a) there were other terrorists on the planes that they never mentioned

2bi-b) there weren't terrorists on the planes at all

2bii) there are certain passengers that were on the flights that the government doesn't want us to know about (special anti-hijacking agents?)

2biii) the government wants to arouse suspicions among people like us that there is something being hidden.

2biv) the airlines and the government simply thinks this is none of our business.

Take your pick... and let me know if you can think of any other possibilites

[Make7]

118. 2bv)

The Guardian:
Some families asked the airline not to include their loved ones' names: these do not appear.

Quoted in Gerard Holmgren's article.

-Make7

[spooked911]

119. That explains part of it but doesn't explain why the media lists

are each slightly different.

I am curious why a family wouldn't want their "loved one's names" not to appear on a list like this. Why exactly wouldn't they want this? Why would just a few families want this? Is this typical for other tragedies?

Wouldn't the vicitm's relatives want their loves ones to be on the official public lists so as to help in claiming vicitm's compensation funds?

[Make7]

122. You may have noticed this previously,

but the mainstream media in the United States is not very good at reporting actual news.

---

Some people are very private, perhaps they don't want the attention that they feel would result from their loved one's name being on a 9/11 victims list.

If they request that the name of their relative not be released and the airline respects that wish, then that's the way it is. I doubt that the airline is under any legal obligation to publicly disclose the passenger list. If they were, it'd probably have already been released and we would have the definite passenger manifest.

-Make7

[John Doe II]

120. Soeey but

Make 7, we had this already.
The problem is not at all that family member didn't want their loved ones' names included. This btw is completely understandable to me.
No. The problem is not why we have till today less than 92 names but why we have MORE than 92 names. In fact all in all the list in the media contain 100 names.
So, what is the defintite flight manifest.
Who are the 92 aboard AA 11 and who are the 8 invented?
Only f the Larsons we do know that mysteriously they got on the list.
And finally why the hack is the passenger flight manifest still a secret?

There are no official flight manifests.
There are no boarding card with fingerprints.
There is no positiv identification of the hijackers.
There is only one video footage of hijackers boarding a hijacked plane. This video appears three years later and the shown Hanjour is clearly not Hanjour. Give me a break. Every judge would love at the presented proofs and not even accept to start a trial but advice the prosecutor to start doing his job.

[Make7]

121. If...

If the airline is the organization that actually has the flight manifest and they won't publicly release all the names, how do you expect to ever get a definite flight manifest?

-Make7