Does anyone remember a "5th plane" on the early 9/11 broadcast?

[Woody Box]

I've just picked up this here on a random walk:

http://www.boldopinion.com/fuck5.htm

Don't bother what the guy writes, he's a crazy conspiracy nuts.

But this here he seems to be right:


Let's look at the facts:

1. Two planes crashed into the World Trade Center
2. One plane crashed into the pentagon
3. One plane crashed into a field in Pennsylvania
4. What ever happened to that 5th plane?

We all know there was a 5th plane. We all saw the original broadcast where they said there was a 5th plane.What ever happened to it?

I remember that there WERE reports in the immediate aftermath of the WTC hits about several additional hijacked planes, and even after the UA 93 Pennsylvania crash.

Does anyone have more precise recollections (or informations) on this 5th plane?

I'm not talking about the diverse "5th hijackings" emerging a few days later. Only the early broadcast.

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. I remember they found knives hidden in a grounded plane

...the day after. Maybe that was it.

"FUCK BUSH" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[Woody Box]

9. That was AA 43

starting in Newark, forced to go down in ....St. Louis, I think.

They found two Indians with a box with box-cutters.

But this plane was never lost or off-course, I think. It's one of the "prevented" hijackings. As I said: I mean only early broadcast.

[aquart]

2. I also remember reports of 8 planes being hijacked.

The first news is always an inaccurate mess.

The first thing I heard about Kennedy's assassination was an hysterical classmate screaming "Kennedy's shot in the head and Johnson's shot in the arm!" It wasn't Johnson in the car, it was Governor Connolly.

People are jumping at shadows and reporting EVERYTHING. A lot of it turns out to have been completely wrong.

Remember, even the blase reporters were in shock.

[MercutioATC]

7. Oops...meant to post in reply to you. See post #6 below.

[Woody Box]

8. Here's a lady who swears she heard of a specific 5th plane

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/Melungeon/2001-09/1000863324


/// Maxie,
I am so glad that someone else heard that about the 5th plane. I thought I
was losing my mind! I kept asking about the 5th plane and no one but me had
heard that particular report. I could have sworn that I heard there were 5
planes. Don't know if the 5th one was hi-jacked or just flying off course
. Thanks for mentioning it. Sheila ///

This sounds similar to what the conspiracy guy says.

[OhioStateProgressive]

3. and the explosion at the state department

I remember all three cable news networks speaking about an explosion at the state department, and then all of the sudden I never heard about it again.

[WitchWay]

4. There was a plane accident

There was some other, supposedly unrelated plane crash (if I remember) over some suburban street...or in the street.

It was weird cus it was a big deal, too, because this story just seemed to die and 3 days later no one was talking about it anymore.
this occured an hour or so later than the world trade center, but the story just died away.

At least, I seem to remember something like this...I want to say it happened in upstate New York. (Have I just imagined this?)

[MercutioATC]

6. That was AAL587. It crashed in Rockaway on 11/12/01.

Mechanical failure...no terrorism involved,

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/12/newyork.crash/

[WitchWay]

27. weird...

Thanks. That is the exact one I was thinking of.

[MercutioATC]

28. The funny part is that there was a resident of Rockaway who was very

vocal in an on-the-street interview after 9/11 who said something like "I live in Rockaway and Osama can come kiss my ass" amout a week before the Rockaway crash. His neighbors weren't amused, if the tale is to be believed.

[MercutioATC]

5. It's explained by what I've been saying all along...

There were 8 commercial aircraft at the time that we had lost radio contact with. When it was apparent that hijacked aircraft had terminated communication with ATC, all of these aircraft became suspect. Only 4 of them were, in fact, an issue.

Contrary to what some :tinfoilhat: may say, losing communication with aircraft is a regular occurrence and standard operating procedure was NOT to take extreme action (like notifying NORAD).

[Abe Linkman]

10. Hopefully, conspirators show appropirate appreciation

"standard operating procedure was NOT to take extreme action (like notifying NORAD)."

Those "Wacky Cavemen" were really smart. They knew, they KNEW that they could proceed to "hijack" large airliners without fear of failure...or at least without fear of ATC interference.

[MercutioATC]

11. The "Wacky Cavemen" line is getting old, Abe...

ANY pilot knew that we didn't scramble fighters every time we lost contact with an airplane. There may be a conspiracy somewhere, but this isn't it. Hell, before 9/11 we did tours of the facility and let civilians onto the control floor. They all saw what how we worked.

It was the prevailing attitude that "allowed" 9/11 to happen. When you've seen hundreds of aircraft lose a radio or a transponder and have had ALL of them be simple mechanical failures, you don't automatically suspect a hijacking. We even had procedures in place whereby a pilot could signal us that his aircraft was being hijacked (both transponder setting and verbal) without it being obvious to a hijacker. These weren't used by the pilots.

I'm not here to support the "official" story. I'm here to shed some light on how ATC really works and show how many of the "proofs" cited by some people lose credibility when you have knowledge of how the system actually works.

[BeFree]

13. "Shed some light on the ATC"

Good, I like to see some light. Like the light that says ATC failed that day. Like the light of whose ATC career ended that day. Like how many planes actually were lost from radar -- we know of at least two. Like the light shining on all the documents detailing the conversations between controllers and the pilots, controllers and their supervisors, between the supervisors and NORAD.

Yes, please shed some light, Merc. As it stands we are in the dark when it comes to seeing real, evidence based facts.

[MercutioATC]

14. As I was not there and even I don't have access to that info,

I can't give you a first-hand account. The best I can do is a second-hand account of the last few minutes of Flight 93 (which I've done a few times already).

My point is that people often see anomalies where there are none. Most of the theories I've seen here are based, at least in part, on false assumptions of the way we do our job.

I've stated on numerous occasions that I'm NOT encouraging anybody to simply believe the official story. I've also done my best to point out misconceptions they have about ATC. The idea that Bush's actions on the morning of 9/11 were strange? Valid. The idea that the government should have heeded earlier warnings? Also valid. The idea that there was some conspiracy afoot because ATC didn't immediately handle a NORAC (NO RAdio Contact) plane as an emergency? Pure BS.

I've also seen a few technical questions about transponders and radar that I was able to answer. I'd like to think i provided some valuable information.

Believe what you want. I'm just here to explain the way the system worked pre-9/11 and how it works now (as much as I'm permitted).

[BeFree]

16. So...

We will only get from you what you are permitted to tell us? Now that sheds some light.

Why is it that the "Official" story is based solely on the "Whacky Caveman" theory, and how in the world was ATC trumped by that "Whacky Caveman" that day? You're right, the "Whacky Caveman" is getting old. It's been the official policy for over 2 1/2 years now.

[MercutioATC]

17. Yes, mine is a security sensitive position. There are things I can't

talk about. That doesn't mean that I'll lie or cloud the issue, however. Anybody who's an ATC is under the same restrictions. We have secutity clearances for a reason.

As far as the "Whacky Caveman" thing, I believing that you're oversimplyfing the issue:

1) OBL is not a "whacky caveman". He's a charismatic leader with fanatical followers, access to large sums of money, and CIA training.

2) It was this combination of planning ability, loyal followers and cash that allowed him to pull off 9/11.

3) At the time of the attack, we had never seen these methods utilized and we were unprepared. "Unprepared" doesn't mean there wasn't some procedure written somewhere, it means that we had no practice in dealing with the situation. In fact, we encountered NORAC and off-course aircraft every day and had been used to dealing with them as mechanical issues and pilot error rather than terrorism.



I have an issue with the official explanation of Bush's actions on the morning of 9/11. I'm not toeing the official line.

I AM, however, an air traffic controller who understands some of the issues involved better than laypersons. That's the function I'm attempting to fulfill here.

[BeFree]

18. Ok...how about this:

Tell us how several planes "re-appeared" on radar.

[MercutioATC]

21. Without knowing exactly how they "disappeared" I can only narrow

it down.

The actual controller quote was that he "lost radar contact". This could mean that the radar target itself was lost or that the data tag became separated from the target (which would happen if the transponder was turned off). We consider both of these situations to constitute a loss of "radar contact".

The media frequently paraphrases, so I don't know how valid the "re-appeared" quote is, but let's assume for a moment that it was accurate. This would mean that the radar target did, indeed, disappear from the radar display. This can be due to equipment issues, depending on the system being used, but if the target DID actually dicappear, it was most likely because the aircraft had flown low enough so as to be below radar coverage in that area (RADAR is a line-of-sight tool. If any terrain or obstruction exists in a direct line between the radar site and the target, the target will "disappear"). The target would then "reappear" when there was no longer an obstruction between it and the radar site.

From experience, it happens in low-altitude situations on a daily basis. There are areas that we first "see" planes at 2000' when 15 miles away, terrain obstructs them until they reach 4500'.

[BeFree]

22. Good enough...

Where the "re-appear" quote comes from is the NORAD report to the 9/11 commission....see link in my other post 15?....

From that report we know: AA77 was lost to radar somewhere north. That all the radars in use that day were studied by NORAD, et al, and the report is based on that study done many days later.

So, following what you have stated as a reason for loss from radar, AA77 went below 4,500 feet, right? That AA77 at normal flight level of 30,000 feet mol, descended to below 4,500 feet, then rose again to enough height to "re-appear" and then fly another half hour or so into the pentagon. Right?

That being the case, why wasn't there a scrambling of interceptors as soon as AA77 re-appeared? At that time both Towers had been hit and ATC must have known AA77 was trouble, right?

[BeFree]

44. Well, well, well, MercATC, cat got your tongue?

Where'd ya go? I thought we had a nice conversation going.... ya said ya wanted to "Shed some light" but when we get down to the nitty-gritty ya just picked up your ball and went home, eh?

I guess it shattered your confidence a bit when the only honest answer you could come up with was that: Yeah, AA77 went below radar, and, yeah, ATC/Norad FU big time by not treating the re-appearing AA77 as a threat, and doing everything they could to see that threat dealt with.

It's been a couple of days since we had our little conversation, and I see you've posted a few times since..... but I'd still like an answer from you.... Or, maybe your silence is answer enough?

Saturday, March,6...8:23 pm

[MercutioATC]

45. I really don't know why I humor you, but here goes...

I said that loss of a radar target is USUALLY due to terrain issues. If the facility is using a radar mosaic display (as ARTCCs do) we don't really see the raw radar data anyway, just the computer's interpretation of where it THINKS the target is after comparing data from multiple radar sources. In 12 1/2 years, I've lost plenty of transponders at high altitudes (above FL230) but I've never lost a radar target. THAT'S why I doubt that the target was "lost" if it was above 5000' or so. In the 30's (that's MSL (mean sea level) not MOL) turning off a transponder and changing course could result in the controller losing track of the flight, especially if they were occupied with other tasks. The target would still be there, it just wouldn't have a data block attached.

What else would you like clarified?

[BeFree]

46. Thanks for the humor

Man, if you really are an ATC, I'm worried. You've skipped over several facts in our conversation. Not good for an Air Traffic Controller, eh? Like the fact I presented to you how Norad stated that AA77 was lost from radar. Not just had the transponder turned of, but totally lost from radar. Now, did you just skip over that or did you intentionally forget? Go back and read the posts.

MOL means more or less. As in 30,000 feet more or less.

I asked you how a plane could be lost from radar. You said it had to go below 5,000 mol. Fine. Gotch ya. Now, tell me why, if AA77 did go below 5,000 feet, was lost from radar, then re-appeared AFTER the WTC's had already been hit, why in hell didn't ATC ring the friggin alarm and get interceptors on that plane?

Look, you came in here claiming to want to shed some light, so start shedding!

[MercutioATC]

47. Wow...this stuff IS hard to explain to rank amateurs...

(especially hostile ones)

The "fact" you presented was an article that said NORAD said that AAL77 was "lost" from radar. As I've said, our technical language "losing radar contact" does NOT always mean what laypersons think. It does not mean that the plane disappeared, it means that the radar target and the data block were no longer correllated. Did the actual radar target disappear at 30,000'? I don't know but based on experience I find it highly unlikely.

Sorry I didn't pick up on your "MOL". It's not one I've seen before.

I didn't say a plane had to go below 5000'. I said that it had to go low enough that intervening terrain or obstructions existed between it and whatever radar site(s) was/were monitoring it. In some places, that's 500'. In some, it's 15,000'. As far as "ringing the alarm", I'd imagine that a supervisor was told. That supervisor, under normal conditions, would then monitor the situation and, if it was determined a situation existed, would call the AMIC (Area Manager In Charge). The AMIC would then monitor the situation and, if necessary, contact both Central Flow and the regional office. I have no idea how many more steps exist between there and the fighter pilot, but I'm willing to bet at least a couple. Controllers don't scramble fighters...we pass along information.

Are things getting a little lighter yet?

[BeFree]

48. No, you are still in the dark

Until you have read up on the few facts that are known, I guess you always will be.

I will point you again to post #15 here. That post has a link to the official Norad timeline and in it is the Norad statement of AA77 re-appearing on RADAR. They had lost the transponder way back - now they have lost it from RADAR. Don't take my word for it - go read up yourself.

I only asked you how could it be lost. You laid out the parameters for being lost. It had to - according to you - go below 4,500 feet. Now you say 15,000 feet. Make up your mind. You're beginning to sound like you're spinning everything. Not good for an ATC.

[MercutioATC]

49. Actually, what I said was...

"This can be due to equipment issues, depending on the system being used, but if the target DID actually dicappear, it was most likely because the aircraft had flown low enough so as to be below radar coverage in that area (RADAR is a line-of-sight tool. If any terrain or obstruction exists in a direct line between the radar site and the target, the target will "disappear"). The target would then "reappear" when there was no longer an obstruction between it and the radar site.

From experience, it happens in low-altitude situations on a daily basis. There are areas that we first "see" planes at 2000' when 15 miles away, terrain obstructs them until they reach 4500'."

In the second paragraph, I was relating personal experience. There ARE areas that are exactly as I describe. In areas of the country with different terrain, the altitudes are different, because of the way radar works, which I described. There are many variables...terrain, distance from the radar site, etc. which all effect when we see the target. I'm sorry if that was unclear.

I've read the NORAD timeline. I see the statement that AAL77 "appears back in radar coverage". That statement doesn't even make sense (the language is wrong). It goes on to say that ATC begins to pick up "skin paints" which does make sense and would imply that the radar target (skin paint) had been lost, but it doesn't say when it had been lost or at what altitude. Are you seeing why this is a little difficult or me to evaluate? There's simply not enough info here.

[BeFree]

50. Now we are getting somewhere

See? Just by reading the same things we are able to begin really discussing what happened.

You say: There's simply not enough info here. Well, hell. That's what we 'Conspiracy Theorists' have been saying all along.......

But back to AA77.... the Norad stuff is why I wanted your opinion. As I read it, I realized that I, being a layman, could hardly come to a conclusion as too what it meant. That's where you come in. I guess what I'd like from you is an extrapolation (?) of the few facts into a reasonable evaluation. We've come this far, don't quit now. Give both sides as you see it being possible. Thanks.

[MercutioATC]

51. There's the rub. Everything I've seen published is in layman's terms...

...which mean nothing to me.

To illustrate: Somebody reads court testimony in which a witness says "The surgeon said it was appendicitis and cut into John's stomach." A third party reads the testimony and asks a doctor "How would you interpret that? Is it malpractice?". The doctor knows that enough information hasn't been provided. The witness probably meant that the surgeon cut into John's "abdomen" which would make sense...but if he really DID cut into the "stomach", that wouldn't make sense.

Our language is every bit as technical as medical language. A report from a non-ATC to people who are non-ATCs is so vague that it's of almost zero value to me.

I wasn't there, as I've said. All my experience permits me to tell you (responsibly) is what I've already said. There are just too many unspecified variables.

I can't form a complete picture for you, but I can answer specific questions about the system that might help you (or others) form their own conclusions. I'm always happy to do that.

[BeFree]

52. So... you've wasted my time

But you do say: "I've read the NORAD timeline. I see the statement that AAL77 "appears back in radar coverage". That statement doesn't even make sense (the language is wrong). It goes on to say that ATC begins to pick up "skin paints" which does make sense and would imply that the radar target (skin paint) had been lost."

There ya go....target had been lost. Don't know why you went off into some doctor scenario, guess ya just can't get away from spinning things.

"Target has been lost" and you can't venture past that. You are no help. A waste of time. Get lost, eh?

[BeFree]

53. It's a shame

People post on here claiming they are an expert at this and that, but when backed up against the wall claim that they don't know shit. But they will sure as hell throw lampoons at the ones here who are trying to get to the bottom of 9/11. They even go so far as to form opinions on things that they really have no clues about. They won't read and contemplate the items brought to this forum, thay just give a knee-jerk reaction.

Ya'll are of no use to the rest of us. It's a shame.

[MercutioATC]

55. Want a better evaluation? Bring better data.

[MercutioATC]

54. My, what an angry little response.

You SPENT your time...I didn't waste it.

I used the doctor analogy because you didn't seem to understand what I was saying in reference to the importance of terminology. If you understood that, you'd understand that the target might not have actually been lost...it may have been one layperson briefing a panel of laypersons. You're trying to extract specifics from a non-specific source. That just doesn't work.

Stop into your local library sometime and ask to see a copy of the Airman's Information Manual and the FAAs 7110.65. Once you get through those, I have a raft of Letters of Agreement and S.O.P.s for you to read. Then, you can spend time learning the airspace and 12 years actually gaining experience. THEN you can tell me why I don't make sense. Until then, feel free to read my posts or not. As in any specialized field, there are things that a layperson might have a difficult time understanding.

[BeFree]

59. Understanding

I have presented testimony that Norad gave to the 9/11 commission. Real evidence from a Colonel on duty that day. A summary: AA77 had turned off it's transponder. Then AA77 re-appeared on radar, but still no transponder.

From you we have: I don't know what to make of this. This is not enough information. The plane would have had to go below 4,500 feet msl, no make that 15,000 feet, in order to be lost from actual RADAR. But I can't tell you what any of this means, even though I have twelve years experience.

Yer right, I don't understand.

[MercutioATC]

60. Then you didn't read what I posted.

First, you seem hung up on the altitude thing. I said that the most common way to lose a radar target was to have an obstruction between the site and the target (terrain). Depending on the terrain, that altitude could be anywhere from a couple of hundred feet to 15,000 feet (picture radar as eyesight...if there's a small hill between you and an airplane you're trying to see, the plane might have to be 500' above the ground so you see it over the hill...if there's a mountain between you and the plane, it might have to be at 15,000'). I don't know an easier way to explain this. Either you understand line-of-sight or you don't.

Again, that's ONE way to lose a radar target. In a mosaic radar system, the computer selectively filters data from different radar sites and it's technically possible for the computer to filter out the radar target entirely (I'm not betting on this scenario...it's way too rare).

My bet is that the terminology used in the briefing was imprecise. The most likely scenario, based on my experience, is that when AAL77 turned off its transponder and turned off course the radar target and data block became uncorrelated. The controller didn't immediately notice and, by the time he did, the target had "re-appeared" where he didn't expect it to be. I'd have to ask the controller (which is why I said that I needed more details to make a conclusion) but I'd expect that the radar target never actually disappeared at all.

Again, without more specifics, I can form an opinion based on my experience, but I could be completely wrong. That's the problem when laypersons try to convey technical information in non-technical terminology.

[BeFree]

61. Finally a straight answer to the question

That 'possible explanation' makes some sense: "AAL77 turned off its transponder and turned off course the radar target and data block became uncorrelated. The controller didn't immediately notice and, by the time he did, the target had "re-appeared" where he didn't expect it to be."

Damn, that was hard.

New question: What would have been your response as an ATC, to this flight re-appearing on radar, and you knew at least two planes had already been hi-jacked? Would you ring the alarm or would you just go "Well, shucks, I wonder what happened? Gee, I wasn't prepared for this shit."

Gawd, I hope it doesn't take another twenty posts to get to the answer to that one!! But what the hell, I got the time if you got the knowledge.

[MercutioATC]

62. About your comments...

As a controller, I deal in facts and I'm reluctant to advance theories without supporting evidence. I wasn't at that scope. All I can do is explain how the system works and allow people to draw their own conclusions. Again, without talking to the controller, I could be completely wrong. I just can't come up with a more plausible explanation.

AAL77 "re-appeared" at about 9:10am (roughly the same time the South Tower was hit). Controllers in MY building first heard about the hijackings on CNN in the cafeteria, not through any official channels. I'd imagine that the controller working AAL77 didn't know a thing about the hijackings for some time after it had turned back toward D.C. Once controllers DID know about the hijackings, yes, they probably did tell a supervisor (actually, the supervisor had probably already been told that AAL was NORAC and off-course, but the supervisor probably didn't know about the hijackings either).

To answer, not knowing about the hijackings, it would have taken me one or two minutes of trying to contact the pilot before I would have told a supervisor. Figure half that (30 seconds to a minute) if I already knew that other planes had been hijacked. The supervisor then would call the AMIC, the AMIC would call Central flow and the Regional office, and they would, presumably, contact NORAD. The point is, there's no "alarm" to ring. We just pass the info up the chain of command. That accounts for a lot of the delay.

[BeFree]

63. Thanks...good info

It does raise some questions, though. You say you found out about the hi-jackings thru CNN? You mean to tell me that an alert did not at least get to your supervisor, ASAP? And this after the second tower had already been hit? How late in the day was it that you were at the cafeteria? It seems to me that communications around the country's ATC centers did not take place. It seems one ATC was not talking to the other, yet I know enough about ATCs to know that that is not the normal MO. So how is it you weren't told that something totally out of the ordinary was taking place?

Ya know any Norad folks who can log-in? There are a few questions we need answered. After all, like you say: "I deal in facts and I'm reluctant to advance theories without supporting evidence" Which is precisely why none of us are comfortable with the official "Whacky Cavemen Did It" conspiracy theory. We are not about to advance that theory since we have so many facts that disprove it.

[MercutioATC]

64. I was at the FAA's Tech Center in Atlantic City on a project.

However, upon returning home, I was told by the people I work with that it was well after the 2nd tower was hit before they received any "official word" of the hijackings (at which point they all became pretty busy clearing the sky).

Unfortunately, I don't know any NORAD people. If I did, I might have a better idea of what really went on.

[BeFree]

65. Wow...

"...well after the second tower was hit..." So the first hit was at 8:42 and the second at 9:10. So we are looking at at least forty minutes before an official word is passed around ATCs? Seems to me to be an awful lot of time, especially since "Vigilant Gaurdian" (?) was being practiced that day.

Let's recap: AA77 went off radar - completely - according to Norad. No transponder - no radar - no nothing. Now, you say it may have slipped the controllers handling at the time, but the Norad report was a look back at all the data from that day, so we can be sure that it wasn't just a slip of the controller. We can be sure that it went off the radar screen totally. Then a UFO, presumed to be AA77, re-appeared. Thirty seconds after losing contact with AA77, a controller probably would have told his supervisor of the NORAC and maybe, just maybe, the super would have passed the info up the chain. With me so far?

Now, we have a UFO in the sky. But communication from one ATC to the other about the already unfolded events has not yet taken place, so no alarms have gone off concerning the UFO because they weren't really prepared for such a scenario. But when, finally, the official word comes down, the skies are cleared. End of story, eh?

Sorry, Merc, it just doesn't sound like everything that could have been done was done by those whose job it is to protect us. It seems like someone somewhere put the screws to the whole operation just long enough for UFO/AA77 to go on flying for as long as it did. Really, are you completely comfortable with our air defence operations that day?

[MercutioATC]

66. First, I never said that I was comfortable with the way things went.

However, knowing the system as it existed, it's really not difficult for me to believe that nothing unusual happened from the FAA standpoint. Things have been changed since 9/11, but the system for relaying information at the time was NOT efficient and we were conditioned to expect equipment problems, not hijackings.

(One small issue...YOU say that "the Norad report was a look back at all the data from that day, so we can be sure that it wasn't just a slip of the controller". I don't agree. I don't believe the target ever actually disappeared. NORAD's not lying, they just sent a non-ATC Colonel to brief a non-ATC panel. I believe the terminology he used was in error.)

[BeFree]

67. Error?

The report was from some military group that looked back at all the data that day. Do you really think a Colonel would make such an error in an official report to the 9/11 Commission?

Now, if he had reported something like: "AA77 did not disappear from radar" then I could have faith in your position. Being as the official report was well vetted, and all we have is "re-appeared" I'll have to go with that. It did indeed disappear totally from radar - meaning it went below a certain altitude.

[MercutioATC]

68. Again, it MAY have gone below a certain altitude. It may not have.

That's ONE way to lose a radar target.

I DO think a Colonel that's not ATC could easily make such an error. You asked my opinion...I'm telling you. That's exactly why I said the information isn't precise enough. Talking to the controller and asking the right questions could net some answers. A transcript of a briefing where nobody is familiar with ATC terminology could be grossly misunderstood. I have no problem believing that a layperson could hear "Radar contact was lost" and interpret that to mean that the actual radar target disappeared from the scope (and then passing that erroneous info along in a briefing).

[k-robjoe]

69. Do you guys know what to make of this?

"Many articles about the hijackings have shown diagrams of the flight-paths followed by the four hijacked planes. These flight paths were not taken from recordings of Air Traffic Control radar as you might think, but from Flight-Tracking services, available to the public on the Internet.

If you connect to a Flight-Tracker you can actually watch a plane on its journey using radar information. Air traffic controllers use radar and the information sent from the plane's transponder, which shows altitude as well as the plane's identification. The hijackers turned off the planes' transponders which made it difficult for ATC to track them, but the flight tracking service continued to record the planes' locations.(...)

What happened to Flight 77? Unlike all the other planes the radar track suddenly stops over Southern Ohio. Completely dead. Any other flight path diagrams you may have seen have the estimated path drawn in.

None of the other planes lost the flight tracking at an early stage in the journey. Why just on this plane?"

http://www.the-movement.com/air%20operation/Journey.htm

[RedSock]

70. no wasting

no one wasted your time. you choose to participate for as long as you like. no one is forcing you to have a conversation

i appreciate the postings and hope the ATC is not turned off from the forum because one person (i wish it was only one) has to act like an a-hole. ...

not sure why "befree" can't manage to have a civil discussion. it would be welcome.

[MercutioATC]

71. Thanks, Redsock. I'm not leaving because of a little opposition.

Actually, DU1 was worse (I had one poster who insisted I was CIA sent here to spread disinformation). I realize that there are some people who refuse to listen to flaws in their theories. Nobody will ever change their minds, and I don't even try. What I do try to do is dispel some of the hype by explaining what it is we do and how our systems work. Usually, that alone is enough to dispel the idea of a "conspiracy".

By the way, I don't have an issue with people questioning the official version of 9/11. I just have a peoblem with events not being understood and spun into conspiracies.

[Abe Linkman]

72. WHICH events are you referring to, ATC?

"I just have a peoblem with events not being understood and spun into conspiracies."

And, why should anyone accept what YOU consider to be "events" that aren't being understood and "spun into conspiracies". What's THAT supposed to be about? Do tell us.

[Bolo Boffin]

73. Is it a big secret, Abe?

And, why should anyone accept what YOU consider to be "events" that aren't being understood and "spun into conspiracies". What's THAT supposed to be about? Do tell us.

Mercutio's an ATC, and he's been filling us in on how the skies of America really operate. The events of 9/11 relevant to his knowledge are:

The response times of NORAD et. al to the hijacked planes

The planes going on and off radar

Both of these are being bandied about as key points in various theories about the conspiracy behind the 9/11 attacks. Mercutio's information shows how there is nothing sinister behind either of these events, despite how potent a source of conspiracy thread you believe them to be.

I myself was concerned about the response times. Since Mercutio's been posting, I saw that my concerns were due to my ignorance on the subject. I'm still troubled by the response times, and hope they will be improved in the future - but I don't see the need to posit a "standdown" order from the Bushistas anymore.

He's also been very informative about the severe problems with hypotheses like Flight 77 denial and the various passenger onloading/offloading scenarios being offered by conspiracy enthusiasts. I can't say that he's actually addressed these issues, but his being a ATC and not even considering such ideas speaks loud enough for me.

[Abe Linkman]

74. bolo: You talkin' about the fact that there are PR folks here?

No, I don't think it's a big secret anymore. In fact, it's kind of interesting to see how they operate. Don't you agree? One thing that sorts lets the cat out of the bag is their failure (or refusal) to put forth a version of what happened on 9-11. All they do is take shots at and try to undermine any alternative to the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Now, you run along and let the person who claims to be an ATC answer my question. He's done nothing to help substantiate the bogus claim that FL 77 crashed into the Pentagon...or anywhere else, for that matter. In my opinion, none of his messages have bolstered the Official Conspiracy Theories of 9-11. The defenders of the Gov't version need a lot more horsepower than what he's able to provide. Then again, trying to defend the indefensible is nearly impossible to do when you have informed people in the audience.

[Bolo Boffin]

75. The 9/11 Information Minister strikes again!

One thing that sorts lets the cat out of the bag is their failure (or refusal) to put forth a version of what happened on 9-11. All they do is take shots at and try to undermine any alternative to the Official Conspiracy Theory.

There's a contradiction in this passage. Can you see it?

Abe slams people for defending the Official Conspiracy Theory AND for not putting forth a version of what happened on 9-11.

They defend a theory but they don't put forth a theory. And this lets the cat out of the bag that they are PR people.

Here, kitty, kitty...

Now, you run along and let the person who claims to be an ATC answer my question.

I'm sorry that my answers don't satisfy you. I will, however, continue to answer them. It saddens me that you would try to stifle an honest discussion.

He's done nothing to help substantiate the bogus claim that FL 77 crashed into the Pentagon...or anywhere else, for that matter. In my opinion, none of his messages have bolstered the Official Conspiracy Theories of 9-11. The defenders of the Gov't version need a lot more horsepower than what he's able to provide.

You say "Gov't version" like it's a bad thing. I remember getting Gov't cheese when I was a kid. That was the good stuff! Ten times better than Kraft Singles.

The "Gov't version" is based on the evidence. The "Gov't version" is the one that accords with what everyone saw on that day. It doesn't rely on Occam-defying feats of government derring-do. It asks us to believe that 19 hijackers took over four planes with the intent to fly them into buildings, and that three planes did so.

Mercutio's experience shows us how they were able to take advantage of the AT system in this country. That's how he helps substantiate these simple, logical claims.

The "Gov't version" is responsible. It's a product of hundreds of people working together: collecting and analyzing the evidence, doing the footwork, conducting the chemical tests, working together to trace the path of the hijackers, autopsying the bodies. At each step along the way, the investigation is documented and verified, so that anyone can retrace the path and see that the best theory is put forward.

Whereas all the alternative versions have in common is some guy with three or four pictures and Internet access.

Then again, trying to defend the indefensible is nearly impossible to do when you have informed people in the audience.

If you would only print this out, Abe, and look at it every time before you post here, the world would be a better place.

Thanks, Mercutio, for being informed and sharing your information with us here at DU.

[DulceDecorum]

76. Defending the indefensible

Boloboffin says:
The "Gov't version" is based on the evidence. The "Gov't version" is the one that accords with what everyone saw on that day. It doesn't rely on Occam-defying feats of government derring-do. It asks us to believe that 19 hijackers took over four planes with the intent to fly them into buildings, and that three planes did so.
Mercutio's experience shows us how they were able to take advantage of the AT system in this country. That's how he helps substantiate these simple, logical claims.

Why is it,
that the FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
claims
that ALL FOUR PLANES SURVIVED SEPTEMBER 11?

THAT is the GOVERNMENT VERSION of the story.
It is based on the actual hardcore evidence.
And the lack of MUSH.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[DulceDecorum]

79. The Official Story

Giuliani, who was mayor of New York during the Sept. 11 attacks and has campaigned on behalf of Bush since then, said in a statement issued through the RNC: "President Bush has provided the steady, consistent and principled leadership to bring our country through the worst attack in our history. His leadership on that day is central to his record, and his continued leadership is critical to our ultimate success against world terrorism."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31696-2004Mar4.html
RUSH: I can now begin to take credit for some things that happened on this program on Friday - A barnburner of a program. You remember the program opened with some audio examples that we had found of families, certain family members, 9-11 victims, all saying the same things. And I cringed. I couldn't believe that the Democratic Party would sink this low , to exploit and capitalize on the misery and loss of families. But they did it. They found a way. In fact, they found some family members - and I'm going to say this - they found some family members who seemed to have more concern over who the president of this country is than over the sanctity of the loss of their own family members. It is beyond the pale that this could happen. It is beyond the pale, yet people cooperate with it, and so much more has been learned about this since.

(Response from Kristen Breitweiser)
Mr. Limbaugh,
For your information, I am one of the widows you are wrongly accusing of being "schooled" by the Democratic Party.
My name is Kristen Breitweiser. I am not a Democrat. I voted for President Bush. So did my husband who was killed on 9/11.
I would encourage you to educate yourself on who I am, prior to your making erroneous statements about me on your radio show.
<snip>
And, as an aside, you failed to mention the following actual fact in your show: that Mayor Giuliani, Police Commissioner Kerik, Former Fire Commissioner Von-Essen, and 9/11 Widow Deena Burnett were "BOOKED" BY THE GOP to go on those shows. (See Washington Post article on Friday). I, on the other hand, was "booked" by no one other than myself. Frankly, Mr. Limbaugh, I expected better from you.

(Response from Monica Gabrielle)
Dear Mr. Limbaugh,
My name is Monica Gabrielle. I was forwarded a transcript of your recent radio show. Plain and simple – I expect an apology for your false statements and erroneous accusations.
In order to enlighten you:
- NO Democratic or other party member “schooled” me or prepared my statements! To date, I have been quite capable of thinking for myself.
<snip>
We have worked tirelessly for over 2 years to have the facts surrounding the 9/11 attacks and the murder of my husband along with 3,000 other innocent people brought to light. Until we know why we, as a nation, were left so utterly exposed, we will remain at risk. In order to accomplish such a lofty goal, we need to thoroughly examine what protocols and procedures were in place prior to and on 9/11. We need to find out where the breakdowns occurred.
Thus, ALL persons (BOTH political parties, BOTH past and present administrations) with any relevant knowledge need to share what they knew, when they knew it. Only then can we truly find where the failures occurred and correct them. Can we – as a nation – demand any less?
Sadly, President Bush and his administration have been staunchly opposed to any type of investigation into the murder of 3,000 innocent souls (not to mention the billions in property damage). This, to me, is unimaginable. Who wouldn’t want to know how and why all our defensive postures failed so miserably on 9/11? Who wouldn’t want to know that these “flaws” have been properly fixed? Who wants to have the same person/protocol in place today if it didn’t work on 9/11? Who wants to be the victim’s family member speaking up the next time tragedy strikes?
http://tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=42
Many thanks to:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=latest_threads

I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends...
that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats,
we will stop telling the truth about them.
Adlai E. Stevenson Jr., Speech during 1952 Presidential Campaign.

Boloboffin claims that the FAA has NOT gone on the record
as stating flately that
ALL FOUR PLANES SURVIVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.

Well then folks, go have yerself a looksee.
This here is the N-number page on
the FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION DATABASE.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNum_inquiry.asp
These are the N-mumbers and Serial numbers
for the four planes of September 11, 2001.
N 612UA Flight 175 Serial 21873 Issued 1/18/1984 Valid
N 644AA Flight 77 Serial 24602 Issued 5/8/1991 Cancelled 1/14/2002
N 591UA Flight 93 Serial 28142 Issued 7/1/1996 Valid
N 334AA Flight 11 Serial 22332 Issued 1/6/2000 Cancelled 1/14/2002
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm

The FAA is stating flately,
to whom it may concern,
that ALL FOUR PLANES SURVIVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.

Hey Boloboffin,
wanna know what the FAA has to say
about the pilots and copilots of those four planes?
This came straight from the horse's mouth.
FAA database says:
Page last updated July 30, 2002
http://162.58.35.241/aadatabase/login.asp

NOTE:
These entries contain addition infomation supplied by
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html

FLIGHT 11
John Alexander Ogonowski AGE 52
He joined the Air Force after graduating from college and flew planes at the close of the Vietnam War. He joined American Airlines in 1979.
315 Marsh Hill Rd
Dracut Middlesex MA 01826-1419
Med First 4/2001 Must wear corrective lenses
DOI 5/13/1997 ATP multi eng land Commercial priv airplane single eng land
DOI 7/10/1978 Flight engineer turbojetpowered
A/A310 A/B757 A/B767 A/DC9 A/L300
RECIEVED ATP PRIVILGES IN 1997 AFTER FLYING WITH AA FOR 18 YEARS.

Thomas Francis McGuinness Jr AGE 42
Med First 5/2001
DOI 7/6/1993 ATP multi eng land Commercial priv Single eng land
A/B757 A/B767
DOI 12/6/1989 Flight engineer turbo

FLIGHT 175
Victor John Saracini AGE 51
Was a Navy veteran.
Med First 4/2001 Must have available glasses for near vision
DOI 2/15/94 ATP multi eng land commercial single eng Private single eng
A/A320 A/B747-4 A/B757 A/B767 A/CA-212
DOI 5/20/1992 Flight instructor airplane single multi land instrument aeroplane
DOI 4/14/1986 Flight engineer turbojetpowered
DOI 1/30/1984 Ground instructor advanced instrument
DOI 10/22/1983 Mechanic airframe powerplant

Michael Robert Horrocks
(Michael R. Horrocks, age 38 of Glen Mills, PA, died tragically on September 11, 2001 aboard United Airlines Flight 175 that crashed into the World Trade Center.
http://livingtributes.com/livingtribute.php?memid=771)
Med First 8/2001
DOI 9/26/1999 ATP Commerical priv
A/B757 A/B767
B757 CIR APPCH VMC ONLY
B767 CIR APPCH VMC ONLY
ONLY ONE LICENSE AND TWO YEARS EXPERIENCE?

FLIGHT 93
Jason Matthew Dahl AGE 43
DOI 8/2001 Flight instructor Airplane single and multi engine
Valid only when accompanied by Pilot cert no
Expires 31 Aug 2003
Med First 6/2001
Must wear corrective lenses for near and distant vision
DOI 12/17/1999 ATP Commerical priv single eng land
A/B 727 A/B737 A/B757 A/B767
757 CIR APPCH VMC ONLY
767 CIR APPCH VMC ONLY
DOI 9/20/1985 Flight engineer turbojetpowered
DOI 9/13/1984 Mechanic airframe powerplant
Note INSTRUCTOR CERT date.(Date of issue:Aug 2001)
HE USED TO RUN UAL's FLIGHT SIMULATORS AND ONLY FLEW TO KEEP HIS CREDENTIALS.

Leroy Wilton Homer Jr AGE 36
Med First class 8/2001
DOI 3/8/96 ATP multi-engine land Private privileges single engine land
A/B 737 A/B757 A/B767 A/L300
DOI 6/26/95 Flight engineer turbojet powered

FLIGHT 77
Charles Frank Burlingame III AGE 51
He had more than 20 years of experience flying with American Airlines and was a former U.S. Navy pilot.
Med First 3/2001 Must wear corrective lenses
DOI 9/11/1996 ATP mulit eng land
A/B 727 A/B757 A/B767
DOI 9/11/1996 Flight engineer turbojetpowered
OBTAINED TWO CERTIFICATES ON THE SAME DAY.
DID HE TRANSFER FOREIGN CREDENTIALS?
HOW DID HE FLY FOR 20 LONG YEARS WITH AA
WHEN HE WAS ONLY CERTIFIED IN 1996? (5 YEARS AGO)

David Michael Charlebois
(David M. Charlebois, age 39 of Washington, D.C., died tragically on September 11, 2001 aboard American Airlines Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon. He was the First Officer of Flight 77.
http://livingtributes.com/livingtribute.php?memid=695)
1448 Swann St NW
Washington, DC 20009-3904
Med First 11/2000 Must wear corrective lenses
DOI 6/28/1999 ATP multi Comm priv single eng land
A/B 757 A/B 767 A/CE500 A/HS125
757 CIR APPCH VMC ONLY
767 CIR APPCH VMC ONLY
DOI 5/28/1991 Flight instructor airplane single and multi eng instrument aiplane
Valid only when accompanied by Pilot cert no
Expires 31 May 1993
DOI 10/23/1989 Flight engineer turbojetpowered
DOI 11/14/1985 Mechanic
MED CERT EXPIRED BEFORE 9:11.

Yo Boloboffin,
is that or is that not
the official story?
These are the credentials of the guys who were flying those planes.

Boloboffin,
can you tell us all how come the UA planes are
STILL REGISTERED and therefore supposedly capable of flying?
Boloboffin,
can you tell us why the two AA planes were cancelled on 1/14/2002 and NOT on 9/11/2001 when they supposedly crashed?

[Bolo Boffin]

82. Please.

The FAA is stating flately,
to whom it may concern,
that ALL FOUR PLANES SURVIVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.

This statement is bovine excrement.

Boloboffin,
can you tell us all how come the UA planes are
STILL REGISTERED and therefore supposedly capable of flying?
Boloboffin,
can you tell us why the two AA planes were cancelled on 1/14/2002 and NOT on 9/11/2001 when they supposedly crashed?

The search is based on tail numbers. Tail numbers can be transferred.

The airlines had a choice after their aircrafts were destroyed on 9/11. They could:

1) Cancel the tail number registration and reassign another aircraft to the route number with its original tail number intact.

2) Transfer the old tail number associated with the route to the new aircraft being put on the route.

UA took option 2. AA took option 1.

Why did it take so long for AA to cancel the tail number registrations? Maybe that's how long it took them to decide what to do with the registration. I'm sure the FAA granted them a little leeway in deciding what to do with the tail number registrations, since their aircraft had been lost in the worst terrorist attack in the history of the world.

Dulce, while I have your attention:

1. Did six million Jews die in the Holocaust? Y or N

2. Will you endorse John Kerry for President? Y or N

I think you forgot about this questions, asked in another thread. I was kind enough to answer your questions; be so kind and civil as to answer mine. The only trouble you have to go to is to type two little letters. I don't understand your vigilance against answering these questions.

[DulceDecorum]

89. You are SO busted

You better go ask your compadre about airline registrations and how they work.

Boloboffin says:
The search is based on tail numbers. Tail numbers can be transferred.

First of all, the search is NOT based on tail-numbers.
It is based on serial numbers.

The American civil aviation registration number, that is, the N number can be recycled or reserved after the plane holding it is de-registered, so it is possible to find two planes that have been registered under the same N number -- though not concurrently. The serial number of the airframe is unique, and identifies the plane no matter what country in which it is registered.
Boeing made some planes which have certain serial numbers. When we traced these planes, we found them to be in the custody of American Airlines and United Airlines.
Each carrier had assigned certain N-numbers to these aircraft.
Hence the tail-numbers.
If you put in the serial numbers on the FAA database, you will find every single instance where that particular serial number has been used. You may also discover other planes with those exact same serial numbers BUT they are NOT Boeing's. They will probably be smaller planes and most definitely from another totally different manufacturer.

You can also check up,
and I most strongly encourage you to do so
(and save your results)
by looking up several other aspects of the aircraft,
such as the name of the owner, the dealer, the make/model, the engine reference and so forth.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/defimg.asp

Boloboffin says that tail numbers can be changed.
This is correct.
HOWEVER,
NONE OF THE FOUR PLANES OF SEPTEMBER 11 HAS HAD THEIR N-NUMBER CHANGED.
NONE OF THE N-NUMBERS OF THE FOUR PLANES HAS BEEN REASSIGNED TO ANY OTHER PLANE.
Don't believe me Boloboffin?
Here go see for yourself.

This is the N-number page.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNum_inquiry.asp
Click on it, or open up another window.
Good.
Now type in
665UA 29236 current #27161 cancelled
666UA 29238 current #27186 cancelled
667UA 29239 current #27209 cancelled
668UA 30024 current #27210 cancelled
669UA 30025 current #27211 cancelled
As you can see, these N-numbers have multiple records.
The first serial number is that of the plane that is currently flying under that N-number.
The second serial number is that of the plane that was retired.

Now type in
612UA (Flight 175)
644AA (Flight 77 )
591UA (Flight 93 )
334AA (Flight 11 )
What do you see?
NO MULTIPLE ENTRIES.
THOSE N-NUMBERS HAVE NOT BEEN RECYCLED.
This means that the United Airlines jet that is currently flying with tail-number 591UA or 612UA is the very same exact plane that had that same exact tail-number on September 10th and September 11, 2001.
And you can check the Boeing serial number for confirmation.

Boloboffin said:
UA took option 2.
2) Transfer the old tail number associated with the route to the new aircraft being put on the route.
THIS IS NOT TRUE.
The United Airlines aircraft are THE EXACT SAME ONES AS BEFORE.

Boloboffin said:
AA took option 1.
1) Cancel the tail number registration and reassign another aircraft to the route number with its original tail number intact.
THIS IS NOT TRUE.
The American Airlines aircraft are DE-REGISTERED.
NO SUCH NUMBER, NO SUCH PLANE.

Boloboffin said:
Why did it take so long for AA to cancel the tail number registrations? Maybe that's how long it took them to decide what to do with the registration. I'm sure the FAA granted them a little leeway in deciding what to do with the tail number registrations, since their aircraft had been lost in the worst terrorist attack in the history of the world.

Boloboffin,
if the airline can reassign the numbers under normal conditions,
then why would it need a little leeway from the FAA?

Accidents involving your aircraft must be reported to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) as required by Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 830.
http://www.cyberair.com/tower/faa/ps/chap2.html
And here is:
Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 830.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_49/49cfr830_00.html

Why has this law NOT been followed to the letter?
Could it be because the AA planes were DE-REGISTERED by the FAA, on January 14, 2002?
Could it be because the UA planes are STILL REGISTERED by the FAA, to this very day?
Could it be because the FAA is admitting
to whom it may concern
that ALL FOUR PLANES SURVIVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2001?

And Boloboffin,
since I have YOUR attention,
can you tell us how it is that Charles Burlingame III was able to fly for American Airlines for 20 long years when the FAA says that he only received his ATP and Flight Engineer certificates on 9/11/1996?

And I am going to be nice and not even ask you how come Mark Bingham's mother was both a flight attendant for United and looking for work at the same time.

Divorce also can make agreements on compensation difficult. A 1971 divorce parted Jerry Bingham, 60, now a retiree in Wildwood, Fla., and Alice Hoglan, 54, of Los Gatos, Calif., who quit United Airlines last year (2003) after 33 years as a flight attendant. Their son, Mark Bingham, 31, an unmarried San Francisco public relations man, was one of the heroes of United Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after a group of passengers fought with hijackers.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2004-01-19-911-compensation-cover_x.htm
The two of them moved to Monterey, Calif. in the late 1970s. While his mother was out looking for work, the 9-year-old Bingham would go to the Monterey wharf after school and fish for their dinner.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93binghambiop8.asp

I guess United Airlines REALLY stiffs it's employees.

The two of them didn’t stay anywhere long those first few years in California. In addition to Redlands, they were in Riverside, before being inspired by one of Hoglan’s favorite authors—John Steinbeck—and moving to Monterey. There they lived in the back of a pickup for a few weeks while Hoglan looked for work and, more than a couple of times, depended on the fish Mark could catch at the wharf for supper. “I look back on it now and say, ‘Wow, that was a really cool, character-building experience,’ ” Hoglan says. “But it was pretty grim. There was never a lot of money, and that may have been the nadir of our existence.”
http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/854_5/854_5_bingham.asp

I am not even going to point out that if Mark was 31 in 2001, then his mother must have been working for United for his entire lifespan. And I am not even going to ask you how many children Alice Hoglan has had so far, even though I would really like to know how one gets to give birth to only one twin.

ALICE HOGLAN:
I carried one of the twin girls and the triplets, as it happened. It has really changed my life. Aside from having Mark Bingham as my son, perhaps having those babies for Vaughn and Cathy was the most important thing I've done.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1726647.stm
For the past few months, Alice Hoglan has been living at her brother Vaughn's house in Saratoga. In March, she acted as a surrogate mother for Vaughn and his wife, Kathy, for the second time; she gave birth to triplet boys. After the birth, she stayed on to help with the boys and with their two 2-year-old girls, one of whom she had also carried.
http://www.svcn.com/archives/saratoganews/09.19.01/cover-0138.html

And since I am feeling particularly benevolent today, I will refrain from asking more questions about David Charlebois expired medical certificate.

He said first officers typically serve as second-in-command AND USUALLY FLY THE PLANES TO WHICH THEY ARE ASSIGNED ON THE RETURN TRIP during "two-leg" flights to various cities.
"He was one of the most liked pilots I know," said Todd, who noted that American Airlines officials and virtually all flight crews and pilots who worked with Charlebois knew he was gay.
http://tampabaycoalition.homestead.com/files/0920GayVictimsGayFriendly.htm

I am going to let you off the hook Boloboffin.
All I want from you is an explanation as to how AA let Burlingame fly for 20 or so years, when two his FAA certificates were only issued on 9/11/1996?

[mn9driver]

94. Geez, DD. I leave for a few days and look at this mess.

N numbers. This has been explained. The owners cancel them. When they want to. The planes were destroyed. The N Numbers live on, until the owners get around to cancelling them.

Medicals. What exactly is your problem with understanding the FAA Medical Certification system? This has been explained. Repeatedly. You are totally fabricating a "discrepancy" where none exists.

"...RECIEVED ATP PRIVILGES IN 1997 AFTER FLYING WITH AA FOR 18 YEARS..." So what? You only need a commercial ticket to fly as FO. Lots of guys get their ATP only when they make Captain for the first time.

"...ONLY ONE LICENSE AND TWO YEARS EXPERIENCE?..." One license? How many should he have had? Two years experience? Uh, no: two years since he got his ATP.

"..Note INSTRUCTOR CERT date.(Date of issue:Aug 2001)
HE USED TO RUN UAL's FLIGHT SIMULATORS AND ONLY FLEW TO KEEP HIS CREDENTIALS... His CFI ticket has nothing to do with whether he instructed for United. Do you have other information on this point? If so, what significance do you attach to it? As a Part 121 employee, I instruct and check at my airline by virtue of a letter from the FAA Program Manager. No CFI needed. By the way, teaching in the simulator doesn't mean you don't fly a full schedule in your off months--at least two thirds of the year, in my experience.

"...HOW DID HE FLY FOR 20 LONG YEARS WITH AA WHEN HE WAS ONLY CERTIFIED IN 1996? (5 YEARS AGO)..." This is his ATP date. Has nothing to do with his Commercial date, or his Private date, or his FE date. I suspect that the duplicate date on the FE is a record error, but as I am on dialup for a few days, I'm not gonna be researching it.


"...MED CERT EXPIRED BEFORE 9:11..." Sigh...

[Bolo Boffin]

97. Thanks, mn9driver

As I was saying, Dulce:

Quit lying about the FAA.

[DulceDecorum]

102. YOU are the purveyor of untruth

and DU Rules forbid me from calling YOU a liar.
Even your compadre has contradicted you and your story.

EVERY SINGLE THING that I have claimed has a supporting link.
You ignore the links,
and most especially
THE LINKS TO THE FAA WEBSITE
and accuse me of lying.

DulceDecorum did NOT make up lies.
DulceDecorum simply posted information that is readily available on the Federal Aviation Administration website.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNum_inquiry.asp
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm
http://162.58.35.241/aadatabase/login.asp

Perhaps now Boloboffin would have us all believe that
it is the FAA that is lying
when they claim that
ALL FOUR PLANES SURVIVED THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.

This information is so devastating to the Boloboffin, IGNORED and Co,
that they are now launching a smear campaign against lil ole DulceDecorum.
Better they should fire Wayne Stroup.
After all, some us are wondering whether his penmanship had anything to do with the discrepancy in the last names of the family members of Mark Bingham.

He had recently moved to New York from San Francisco and was returning to the Bay Area on Flight 93 to visit family. He called his aunt and mother, United Airlines flight attendant Alice HOGLAN, from the hijacked plane, saying things didn't look good and that he loved them all.
His relatives believe Bingham played a role in thwarting the hijackers. "We think he helped cause it to crash in the woods instead of the White House or somewhere else," his uncle Linden HOAGLAND said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-091301victims,1,4446410.story

"We called him Bruiser when he was a little kid," said Bingham's uncle, Los Gatos optometrist Lee HOGLAND.
http://www.svcn.com/archives/saratoganews/09.19.01/cover-0138.html

Alice HOGLAN in San Francisco said her 31-year-old son Mark Bingham phoned her from aboard the Pittsburgh crash flight to say: ''Hi, Mom... I love you very much.''
Mrs HOGLAND broke down as she told CNN: ''He said 'We've been taken over. There are three men that say they have a bomb.' He said, 'I want you to know that I love you very much, in case I don't see you again.'
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2001/09/13/story12701.asp

Bingham's mother, Alice HOGLAND, said she hopes her son educated others by destroying preconceptions.
http://www.glaad.org/publications/archive_detail.php?id=3172

One of the heroes of 9/11, Bingham and his mother Alice HOAGLAN settled in Redwood Estates when he was around 13 years old, and Bingham later attended Los Gatos High School.
http://www.losgatos.com/people/index.shtml

--Alice HOAGLAN's son, Mark Bingham, called her from United Airlines flight 93, which was hijacked as it traveled from Newark, N.J., to San Francisco, Calif. She spoke with The Early Show about that phone call.
http://www.cbsnews.com/earlyshow/healthwatch/healthnews/20010912terror_bingham.shtml

The closing ceremony lacked the excitement of the opening ceremony. The touching moment was that the Tom Waddell awards were presented with the participation of Alice HOAGLAND, mother of Mark Bingham, who was on the flight which crashed in a Pennsylvania field when passengers overpowered the terrorists on September 11, 2001.
http://www.optionsri.org/dec2002/articles/Gay_Games.htm

We know that Mark Bingham had a mother.
We are told her first name was Alice.
If there is anyone here who can tell us what exactly her last name was or is,
PLEASE STAND UP.
We need your help.

Boloboffin, here is a challenge.
Go to the FAA website
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm
and find something that says different from that which DulceDecorum has posted.

Do let us all know IF and WHEN you ever find it.
Or if you can tell us
Why it is,
that the FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
claims
that ALL FOUR PLANES SURVIVED SEPTEMBER 11.

THAT is the GOVERNMENT VERSION of the story.
It is based on the actual hardcore evidence.
And the lack of MUSH.

(Gentlemen, place your bets.
Especially those who think that Boloboffin is going to come up with ANYTHING other than insults directed at DulceDecorum.)

[mn9driver]

106. You flatter yourself.

"...This information is so devastating to the Boloboffin, IGNORED and Co,
that they are now launching a smear campaign against lil ole DulceDecorum..."

Devastating? Hardly. Frustrating at first, when I thought you were actually interested in understanding; but now it's just entertaining to see what new links you post and what "conclusions" you leap to as a result.

I have no need to smear anyone here. When truth and fiction are posted together in the same thread, folks who are actually interested in learning something can usually tell the difference.

Oh...am I the IGNORED or the "and Co"?

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

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

[DulceDecorum]

109. The FAA STILL lists them as registered.

I got my info from the FAA.
Have you checked it out Boloboffin?
Have you ACTUALLY gone to the FAA website and pulled up those N-numbers?

Nah.
All you are good for is casting aspersions at those who tell the truth.
You simply can't handle the truth.

It really should be very easy to refute me, Boloboffin.
You have the exact pages where the FAA is telling these "lies."

But you can't do a damn thing about this Boloboffin.
Except try to make like Ken Starr.

And you are SO busted.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[DulceDecorum]

99. Sturm und drang

signifying NOTHING.

Most relevant phrase of the post above:
"I'm not gonna be researching it."

[Abe Linkman]

78. It all sounds so...simplistic, when you spin the Official Conspiracy Story

"See, there was this bad man who lived in a cave, and one day he decided to send over some of his folowers to hijack some planes and stuff, and just fly 'em into the WTC & Pentagon."

Is there ANYONE here at DU who believes the Gov't story you're pedaling? ANYONE? I don't there's anyone who BELIEVES it. Maybe two or three who are here as advocates of it, but a good lawyer will take any side of any issue and make any argument he's paid to make.

Funny, that you've been promoting your defense of the Official Conspiracy Theory for two years, and you haven't converted even ONE person here. At least no one has said you convinced them.

Then again, the simplistic storyline of the Official Conspiracy Theory
has the problem of not making a bit of sense.

You've got your work cut out for you, my spinning friend.

[Abe Linkman]

80. And that means boloboffin is the "Official 9-11 DISinformation Minister"

It's YOUR title and you can cry if you want to...but if what you posted is the Official Gov't Conspiracy Theory...fine. What is your support of it based on? Wheredy evidence and proof, boloboffin?

[Bolo Boffin]

83. Abe - evading the issue again.

You claimed that PR people here at DU are defending the Official Conspiracy Theory and yet haven't put forth a theory of their own.

This is such an incredible contradiction that I can't believe your sagicity allowed it to emanate from your keyboard. When I point it out, you only respond with more "Wheredy" obstifucation. This is so disappointing, Abe. I thought we had a dialogue going on.

[Abe Linkman]

84. And so, I ask you once AGAIN, respond with some proof, bolo

What proof do you have to offer in support of the Official Conspiracy Theory? A few days ago mentioned some light poles that were down, and I responded that all that proved is that they were no longer standing. Got anything else? I'm really surprised at you. I thought for sure the "Official 9-11 DISinformation Minister" would be able to offer something a little more substantial than pointing out the obvious fact that some light poles were down & that a piece of aluminum was found on the Pentalawn. Not much of a PR job. One hopes that taxpayer-funded PR folks can do better than that.

[LARED]

85. Here's the rub Abe

You want to know "What proof do you have to offer in support of the Official Conspiracy Theory?" Well all proof that's put forward you choose to ignore. Which is of course your right to do so.

But then you have the audacity to to offer zilch to back up any alternative theories. Except your wacky cave man spin.

Abe by the powers vested in me by me I formally declare you to be the

"Official 9-11 NO-information Minister"

Congrats.

[Abe Linkman]

87. Here's your prob, "Lared": You confuse refute with ignore.

Neither you nor your twin ("Official 9-11 DIS-information Minister")
has put up ANY credible evidence. As you well know, your twin (same person?) posted some claims and I refuted them. That's hardly the same thing as "ignoring".

By the powers vested in my by me, I formally declare you to be the
"Ass't 9-11 DISinformation Minister". Sorry, you have to take second place, but "bolo" beat you to the punch. On the other hand, maybe he didn't!

YOU got any evidence? If so, post it.

[LARED]

90. Reply

:boring: :boring:

[Abe Linkman]

91. Lared: You & your twin seem to be doing an awful lot of evading...

If the truth bores you, then why in the world are you here? I guess after two years of spinning, you're entitled to some rest...and even a vacation. "Neither" of you has convinced one single person here that the "Wacky Caveman & Cavemen Did It" Conspiracy has any merit.
Your spinning efforts truly are becoming a bore.

[LARED]

92. Abe, Abe,Abe

For a guy that has not posted any theory other than the "wacky cave man didn't do it," why are you talking about truth. If you were interested in finding the truth you might actually post something that dispels the "Official Story" or at least come up with something that that proves someone other than the wacky cave man did it.

[Abe Linkman]

93. YOU are here in support of a theory. It's up to YOU to make a case.

YOU have yet to post ANY proof to back your claim of what happened on 9-11. Why not? If you believe that the "Wacky Cave Man & Cavemen Did It" version is the truth, fine, then give us your proof. You obviously don't have any, and how could you?

I don't claim to know what happened on 9-11. You do. Therefore, it's up to you to make your case with credible evidence. Especially, in light of the fact that you are here on a forum dedicated to finding out what happened, by people who don't believe the "Wacky Cave Man" Theory put out by the Gov't. So, out of politeness, don't you think it's way past time for you and yours to stop spinning and start proving?

Come on. If you provide convincing evidence to back your claims, I'll be more than happy to endorse the theory that so far seems little more than a propaganda story like the incubator babies in Kuwait.

[Bolo Boffin]

86. It's all been offered before, Abe

More silly subject-changing and misrepresentation of the clear evidence that disproves your desired outcome. Ad infinitum, you offer the same disproven arguments against the evidence. Eyewitness testimony can, at times, be unreliable, so you throw every scrap of eyewitness testimony out. With arguments like that, you must be a busy lad, running around, having to verify every bit of information that affects your life with your own eyes. It's a wonder you have time to post on the Internet.

I advise you to weigh the miracles against each other: which is more miraculous?

The "wacky cavemen" pull off one more daring terrorist attack (Remember the Cole bombing? I guess that was the government too...sheesh.)

or

The US Government was able to organize and execute the most incredible feat of magic ever: convince everyone who tuned in that day, eyewitnesses, one and all, that four planes had been hijacked and crashed into various spots in the US, all the while shuttling passengers, distributing evidence in the blink of an eye under the gaze of hundreds of eyewitnesses, negotiating the fighter jet/missile/passenger plane/remote control aerial ballet over the skies of DC and NY, while simultaneously shutting down all aircraft traffic in the United States.

There's an old joke: How do we know that the CIA didn't assassinate John Kennedy?

He's dead, isn't he?

Choose wisely.

[Abe Linkman]

88. Allegations aren't proof, "boloboffin"

ALL you and your other PR friends have offered are allegations. The only evidence you've offered was refuted long ago.

Now, you're left with the same old right-wing trick of claiming it's all been offered before. It's all old news.

The old news is the same as the new news: you have offered NO proof so far that hasn't been easily refuted.

I don't think you have any, and I think you know that most people here realize it.

Why don't you jump ship and join us? You aren't under any kind of contractual agreement, are you? Then, come on over to the side you know has truth as its ally. You're bright and you write well. You must be tired of trying to be a magician for the impossible; so come join us realists and help expose a wider audience to the lies of the Official Theory Conspiracy. You can even bring along any imaginary friends with you.

[Bolo Boffin]

98. Whatever.

Why don't you jump ship and join us? You aren't under any kind of contractual agreement, are you? Then, come on over to the side you know has truth as its ally. You're bright and you write well. You must be tired of trying to be a magician for the impossible; so come join us realists and help expose a wider audience to the lies of the Official Theory Conspiracy. You can even bring along any imaginary friends with you.

Won't be happening, Abe. I'm under a single obligation: to speak the truth as I see it. I couldn't sleep if I began to hawk the kind of propositions you espouse here at DU. I've seen the overwhelming evidence and there's nothing that's ever been raised here that made me reconsider things like Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon or controlled demolitions of the WTC buildings. The basic facts remain the same.

If another world exists beyond this one, I would be afraid that the victims of 9/11 would come after me for denying the truth about how they died. I couldn't do it for money, and I couldn't do it in jest on a message board that I disagreed with politically. Either of these motives are shameful and disrespect the dead. There are some things beyond politics, and 9/11 is one of them.

[Abe Linkman]

100. "Some things beyond politics"

That's right, and that's why I can't understand why anyone would prostitute themselves in the shameful manner that so many PR spinners do. Like the people at H&K who put out the false stories about Iraqi soldiers yanking the plugs out of incubators in Kuwait (home of the Pedophile Emirs) and throwing babies to their certain deaths.

But, they did it. Shameful and disrespectful...not only to the dead, but also to those of us who believe some things are just not worth lying about, no much the liars are being paid.

I think we're ALL under the obligation to LEARN ... AND SPEAK the truth.

WHAT overwhelming evidence are you referring to, pray tell? The ONLY evidence that's available to the general public doesn't support the idea that FL 77 hit the Pentagon, anymore than it does that Barbara OIson called Ted Olson from that flight. Yet, two years on, and you're one of only two or three people here who claim to have studied the available evidence and came to a different conclusion than everyone else. There's a reason why we use juries instead of allowing one or two people to determine what the truth is, in a courtroom.

[TrogL]

103. Everybody else?

I bet you could count the people that believe in your crackpot theories on the fingers of one hand.

Appealing to "everybody knows" doesn't cut it around here.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[DulceDecorum]

110. Double Irony

Boloboffin,
have you forgotten the aspersions you cast upon the character of Brig. Gen. Arthur F. "Chip" Diehl III of the US Air Force
http://www.af.mil/bios/bio_print.asp?bioID=5226&page=1
because of this quote?
"There wasn't a single piece of the jet to be seen anywhere."
http://www.af.mil/news/Sep2001/n20010917_4040.asp

As for the testimony of those who "saw" the the Penta-crash,
we have extremely conflicting reports.

I personally,
am unable to accept the testimony of those
who claim to have been gulfed by the Penta-fireball,
- which generated temperatures of over 1,000 degrees -
for extended periods of time;
and yet managed to emerge clean and pressed,
with unburned hair,
unburned eyelashes,
and without the assistance of trained firefighters.

Boloboffin,
why is it that you accuse others of that which you see
when you view your reflection in their eyes?
Your accusations smack of Rovian hypocrisy.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[MercutioATC]

114. Hehee! That's the second time I've ben accused of being here solely to

spread disinformation.

If you think that's the case, search ALL of my posts on DU. You'll find that only a very few are in this particular forum. I suppose it's possible that a "PR" person could cover his real agenda by posting mostly in the "GD 2004 Primary" forum, but Isn't that a bit of a stretch?

...then again, most conspiracy theories are, aren't they?

[Abe Linkman]

116. Conspiracy theories that are a "bit of a stretch".

"but Isn't that a bit of a stretch?
...then again, most conspiracy theories are, aren't they?"


I don't know about "most" conspiracy theories, but the "Wacky Caveman & Cavemen Did It" Conspiracy is a lot more than just a BIT of a stretch.

[MercutioATC]

117. We know we don't agree on this one, Abe...

well, not entirely. I do believe that the "official" story has holes that need to be filled, but I also think that OBL, after millions of dollars in financial support and training from the C.I.A. (not to mention his intelligence and charisma) hardly qualifies as a "Wacky (or "whacky") Caveman". Perpetuating that label does none of us any good.

[MercutioATC]

81. For example:

I've seen people who thought that it was procedure to scramble fighters any time a plane stopped talking to us or deviated off course and saw that as proof of a conspiracy on 9/11.

I've seen people who didn't understand why it was important to be able to switch codes or turn off a transponder.

I've seen people who don't understand the terminology we use and misinterpret it.

Whenever I come across a post that seems to show a lack of understanding of what we do, how we do it, or the capabilities of our equipment, I try to enlighten the poster (mostly because I don't think there are a lot of air traffic controllers who post here).

I've seen a couple of pilots who do the same thing. I'm grateful for their explanations because I don't always fully understand the airline end of things. I try to keep my posts as informative as possible, but it's occasionally difficult because so much of what we do is technical enough to require some background in aviation, or at least a thorough explanation.

You have an issue with my posts, why?

[TrogL]

96. Conspiracy theorists hate reality

it punctures their crazy theories.

Hence, they will discount any evidence given by people who actually know what they are talking about. I'm surprised he hasn't called you a Republican plant. It's just a matter of time.

[Abe Linkman]

101. WHICH conspiracy theorists hate reality? Rightwing extremists?

They're the only ones here who hate reality. That's why they continue to try and sell the totally fabricated "Wacky Caveman & Cavemen Did It" Conspiracy...in spite of the enormous lack of evidence for that particular conspiracy theory.

Or, are you suggesting that 9-11 wasn't the result of a conspiracy?

[TrogL]

104. 9-11 was the result of three interlocking conspiracies

• Fundamentalist Muslims wanting the world under Sharia law
  
• Fundamentalist Christians wanting the world under Xian law
  
• Fascists wanting control of the worlds money and resources
  

The three sides took advantage of each other to create LIHOP.

Wacky Cavemen had nothing to do with it.

[Abe Linkman]

105. Make that FOUR

The fourth is the one you posted. Haven't you been around here long enough to know that only YOU, Boloboffin, Lared, and maybe one more person are the ONLY ones who believe the "Wacky Caveman & Cavemen Did It" Official Conspiracy Theory?

Read some of the messages here and you'll see what I'm talking about.
LIHOP is an impossibility as far as 9-11 is concerned. You believe in all kinds of fantastical things, don't you?

[MercutioATC]

115. I've been called an C.I.A. plant. Does that count?

[TrogL]

118. Close enough

Apparently I work for either Rumsfeld or Cheney.

[Abe Linkman]

119. Then what in the world are you doing HERE?

n/t

[TrogL]

122. You've really got to pay attention

You see there's this thing called "context". Within the context of this particular sub-thread we are talking about false accusations.

[Abe Linkman]

19. MercATC: Which issues DON'T you understand better than laypersons?

"I AM, however, an air traffic controller who understands some of the issues involved better than laypersons. That's the function I'm attempting to fulfill here."

Kindly let us know which "issues" you don't claim to understand "better ahn laypersons."

Thank you.

[MercutioATC]

20. I don't understand the internal workings of NORAD any better than most

people. I don't understanding the internal workings of airlines or reservation systems better than most people. I'm no more an expert on cellular technology than the average person nor do I claim to have a greater understanding of engineering and how it relates to structures than most people.

Does that answer your question?

[Abe Linkman]

25. What qualifies you to assert your opinons on 9-11 should be taken any ...

more seriously than those of others? Especially, those of people who have studied the subject?

You are quick to denounce theories that you don't agree with (at least you SAY you don't agree with)...so I'd like to know why we should take YOUR opinions and theories seriously.

What are your credentials beyond the control room of whatever airport tower you say you work at?

[MercutioATC]

26. Well, I DO have more knowledge than most people when we're

speaking about ATC procedures, radar, and transponders.

As an example, I can assert from first-hand experience that, contrary to some of the posts here, we do NOT treat all NORAC aircraft as emergency situations. We do NOT contact NORAD whenever a plane deviates from it's flight plan. Turning off a transponder will NOT usually make a plane disappear.

More importantly, I can attest to the fact that the atmosphere pre 9/11 was not one that kept us on guard. Frankly, we were complacent. That's something that added to the issue...it's something that's changed...but it's not evidence of a conspiracy.

Keep in mind, I've never said that everything went by the book or that people should believe the entire official story. I will, however, point out when there are factual errors in an argument.

[Abe Linkman]

29. So, you're acknowledging your opinions are not too be taken anymore...

seriously than anyone elses. That's good. Now, in the future, show some restraint when it comes to areas outside your realm of knowledge - that is, other than ATC procedures, radar, and transponders.

You have no right to claim your view of what happened should be taken any nore seriously than that of anyone else here. You claim that Osama is behind this, but you haven't produced any proof of that. Yet, you disparage people who disagree with that view and try to set yourself up as some kind of authority on the subject by saying you have a "better understanding". You don't. You've acknowledged that your "better understanding" is limited to ATC procedures etc. If YOU have any proof that OBL had ANYTHING to do with 9-11 - kindly produce it. Until then,
your support of the "Wacky Caveman & Cavemen Did It" Conspiracy is only your opinion. Not only can you NOT prove it, but logically, your version makes no sense.

If you'd like to take the "bolo challenge" --- step up to the plate and state your case. I'm more than willing to listen to what your "case".
What happened; and how, Mr. ATC?

[LARED]

30. Fascinating

Now, in the future, show some restraint when it comes to areas outside your realm of knowledge..

That's really interesting coming from a guy whose only theory is that the Wacky Cave Man didn't do it.

[Abe Linkman]

31. Good sense always is interesting.

Thanks for acknowledging it.

[mn9driver]

32. Hahahahahah! God forbid that someone with actual aviation

knowledge actually expresses an opinion "outside his field"

"...Now, in the future, show some restraint when it comes to areas outside your realm of knowledge - that is, other than ATC procedures, radar, and transponders..."

You're right, Abe. Far be it from those of us who actually work in the Airline Industry to rain on your parade. You guys want to sell books? Get hits on your websites? Fine.

I have no problem with 9/11 scenarios---as long as they don't launch off into fantasyland. When they do, I will always be happy to wave the big ol' bullshit flag.

When people who actually know something about aviation post here, guess what?

Their opinions count just as much as the hologram/missile/remotecontrol/gigantic-conspiracy folks--and yours --do. Mercutio has done a nice job of putting out ATC information; he knows more about it than I do, just like I know more about the flying/airline side than he does.

Your hostility towards his "opinions" indicates that being informed is a problem for you. Too bad for you, too bad for the credibility of your theories.

[MercutioATC]

33. I've made it clear that my expertise lies in ATC procedures, but I have

the right to state my opinion just as you do. Pray tell, what specialized knowledge do you have that we should take your opinions more seriously than anybody else's?

[impe]

34. Hopefully

You're not at work right now.

I'm still trying to understand the argument that (4) glass planes were not a major risk to nomal air traffic conditions that morning. How did the terrorists know they weren't flying in the paths of other air traffic?

[LARED]

38. How?

Maybe they looked out the window.

[MercutioATC]

39. Actually, it'a a big sky...

It would be very unusual if a random uncontrolled plane actually hit anybody. Yes, it's a higher danger level than we're comfortable with, but odds are nobody would hit.

[LARED]

41. I know

it's a big sky. I just thought that if the terrorist were concerned about other air traffic, all they had to do is look out the windows and they would be able to easily avoid almost anything in the air.

The notion that

I'm still trying to understand the argument that (4) glass planes were not a major risk to normal air traffic conditions that morning. How did the terrorists know they weren't flying in the paths of other air traffic?

is some sort of evidence that the hijacking were planned by the government because the hijackers would never risk the danger due to other aircraft is invalidated by the easily conceived notion that the pilots could look out the windows to see where they were going, and to see if other aircraft were in their path.

[impe]

58. Sorry

the 3 stooges weren't instrument rated, and at that altitude flying "visuals" is hardly a sound argument in defense of the caveman did it argument.

[Abe Linkman]

36. YOUR message #17 is why I said what I did.

"I AM, however, an air traffic controller who understands some of the issues involved better than laypersons. That's the function I'm attempting to fulfill here."

Perhaps you just didn't clearly communicate what you really meant, but the context of the above was AFTER you made disparaging remarks about people who don't support the "Wacky Caveman & Cavemen" Conspiracy theory. You were implying that your views about OBL et al. should be taken more seriously...based upon your claims to be an ATC.

Then, you conflate the words "issues" and "procedures" (presumably, you mean ATC procedures). In other words, I don't have any way of knowing if you are an ATC, but if I'll accept your statement that you are, and certainly if you are, you would know more about ATC PROCEDURES than a layperson would - but you are out of line whenever you then try to imply that your overall views (opinions, really) of what happened on 9-11 should be taken more seriously than mine or anyone elses. The fact that you are an ATC only gives you more credibility in knowledge of ATC procedures, but that is all.

So, if you're welcome to your OPINIONS of Osama, but so am I. AND, I'm sure that my knowledge of OBL is at least equal to yours, and my ability to THINK and analyze what might have happened on 9-11 and who might be responsible, and the likelihood of OBL's involvement (if any), is certainly equal to your abilities in that regard.

So, while you may get tired of people who insist upon wanting proof of OBL's involvement and refuse to toe the "Official Version" conspiracy theory unless and until such proof is presented...you really should back off from trying to imply that because you're an ATCer, your opinions about Osama should carry more weight than mine or anyone else's here.

Or, maybe your status as an ATC has afforded you the opportunity to gain access to knowledge of OBL that isn't generally known even by the informed public. If so, how about sharing with us here at DU. C'mon. Be a good sport. Give us the scoop. Oh. You don't? Never mind.

In your ATC circle, which of the 9-11 M.E. "pilots" is considered to have been the most skillful in executing their plans that fateful day?

[MercutioATC]

40. And I posted what I did in direct response to your questions.

You had asked:

" So... We will only get from you what you are permitted to tell us? Now that sheds some light."

To which I replied:

"Yes, mine is a security sensitive position. There are things I can't talk about. That doesn't mean that I'll lie or cloud the issue, however. Anybody who's an ATC is under the same restrictions. We have secutity clearances for a reason."

The second part of your post asked the following:

"Why is it that the "Official" story is based solely on the "Whacky Caveman" theory, and how in the world was ATC trumped by that "Whacky Caveman" that day?"

And the second part of my reply stated:

"As far as the "Whacky Caveman" thing, I believing that you're oversimplyfing the issue:

1) OBL is not a "whacky caveman". He's a charismatic leader with fanatical followers, access to large sums of money, and CIA training.

2) It was this combination of planning ability, loyal followers and cash that allowed him to pull off 9/11.

3) At the time of the attack, we had never seen these methods utilized and we were unprepared. "Unprepared" doesn't mean there wasn't some procedure written somewhere, it means that we had no practice in dealing with the situation. In fact, we encountered NORAC and off-course aircraft every day and had been used to dealing with them as mechanical issues and pilot error rather than terrorism."

I then closed my response by reiterating what I've said on numerous occasions before (in this same thread, too, in fact):

"I have an issue with the official explanation of Bush's actions on the morning of 9/11. I'm not toeing the official line.

I AM, however, an air traffic controller who understands some of the issues involved better than laypersons. That's the function I'm attempting to fulfill here."

If you had read my earlier posts in this thread, you'd have that I'd already explained what issues I was talking about...

Again, my expertise lies in ATC issues (procedures and equipment). I also have opinions, as many people do. I don't understand your confusion - I've clarified this issue many times already.

[Abe Linkman]

42. ATC: Just don't try to claim your opinions are more credible.

You claim to be an ATC & that you "understand some of the issues better than laypersons."

That's fine as long as you don't try to claim that your understanding is any better than laypersons if the subject is NOT about ATC procedures.

Your knowledge of ATC procedures may or may not be better than others, but your overall knowledge and understanding of what happened on 9-11 is NOT any better than that of others, and may not even be as good. Your sweeping dismissals certainly aren't confidence boosting.

Just don't try to come across like your understanding of 9-11 is "better" merely because you work in air traffic control. It's okay that right now, you don't agree that OBL is a "Wacky Caveman". If you are only interested in objective truth, then one day your view is bound to change.

[MercutioATC]

43. I never claimed that they were, in fact I stressed that my expertise was

in ATC. I never made any other claims. I don't know of anybody else who's misunderstood my position on this.

[Abe Linkman]

56. Careful readers might have noticed.

I'm not going to go back & dig it out, and maybe you just aren't a careful communicator (which does seem to have been a quality of ATCers on 9-11. Maybe the standards have been relaxed since RR did his ATC thing in 1981)...but you talked about having a "better understanding"...I believe it continues "of the issues". You didn't qualify the claim to only mean with reference to ATC procedures, and that is why I spoke up. You used it in the context of a rant about your views of 9-11 theories that differ from the "Wacky Caveman & Cavemen Did It" Conspiracy Theory.

[MercutioATC]

57. Whatever. I don't know anybody else who was confused, but I apologize.

As I've stated quite a few times now, that wasn't my intent.

[TrogL]

95. Ronald Reagan fan?

[Festivito]

12. A fifth plane, hijackers left by train??

There was something about another plane, grounded, suspicious passengers, left by train. Don't recall them being found.

Real fuzzy on the memory now. It did run through DU.

If I'm correct on this at all.

Would love to know who and where those passengers are now...

[Woody Box]

23. That's probably AA 43 (see post #9)

But that was not the plane reported in the first hours (i think, it was a few days later).

[BeFree]

15. NORAD report of plane #5

At 9:49, FAA reports that Delta 89, which had been reported as missing, is now reported as a possible hijacking. So again he is --
From "Official NORAD timeline" DU link:
click here

[Woody Box]

24. Ah - Delta 1989

Okay, that's a good possibility. It was grounded in Cleveland. But they found no bomb, nothing, as far as I remember.

Thanks for the link.

[Woody Box]

35. Update: the 5th plane

After visiting several forums and chatrooms dating from the first hours after the 9/11 attacks I found out that a lot ot people indeed heard about a 5th hijacked plane, and they wondered why this plane vanished in later reports. The earlier reports were not denied or corrected. The plane simply was not mentioned anymore.

A few quotes:

I remember when the World Trade Center first got hit, there was the first news reports saying that 5 planes crashed.  Within 2 hours though, apparently only 4 planes crashed and I never heard about the 5th plane again.  I didn't imagine this because several other people also remember there being a 5th plane.

One of the things I want to know is why all morning I heard reports about a fifth plane that had been hijacked, one without a known location. The question I asked myself is: how you can lose an airliner, and why that piece of news seems to have gone away.

In and among the tidal wave of coverage, most of which was the same stuff from differing angles, I heard a reporter say that FIVE planes had been hijacked. Later in the day I heard about only four with no explanation of why they had said five earlier.

There was definitely a news blackout about the fifth and plus plane(s). i was watching the news in the day, and by the evening i thought i had probably imagined the whole fifth plane thing. combined with the fact that the net seemed to be ahead of the tv, the news censorship has almost been as scary as the event itself.

Regarding the fate of this plane, there were rumours going around: it was headed to Washington, it crashed near Camp David, it crashed in Colorado, it was shot down, etc.

Maybe it was Delta flight 1989, but this version came up some days later; on 9/11, nobody was talking about a hijacked Delta flight.

Is the 5th plane just a piece of disinformation, or what?

Weird.

[MrMonk]

37. I remember "up to 7 planes".

Remember, the report was first made during the morning of 9/11.
Planes in flight had been ordered to land, but there was a time lag between giving the order and accounting for every plane that had been in the air. I attribute the higher estimates to the fact that noone knew WTF was going on that morning.

[MasterKey]

113. I heard about a shootdown in Canada on 911

Never heard about a 5th plane; However, on my old forums, I did have a member who was a ham radio operator, and was listening on 911 when he heard that a Boeing 767 had been shot down over Saskatchewan, Canada, by the Canadian Air Force;

Weird, yet true; No way to verify.

cheers-
MK--

[TrogL]

123. Nonsense

I would have heard about it.

[gate of the sun]

120. yes I remember this

my daughter who was 16 at the time has mentioned it many times. What happened to the 5th plane. WTF was that all about?

[MasterKey]

121. Got any links to this 5th crash?

I would love to see them; anything?

cheers~
Masterkey-- :)

[MasterKey]

124. Kind of like the Oklahoma Bombing, When CNN

Kind of like the Oklahoma Bombing, When CNN was declaring and showing a bomb, a round metal bomb out of the Oklahoma building, just after the attacks;

Then they suddenly stopped reporting this, and started along a whole new storyline; Ya, weird....

cheers~
Masterkey-- :)

[TrogL]

125. Maybe because it wasn't a bomb?

Has that ever occured to you?

Reporters (and cops) like nice easy to understand stories. They see explosion, they want a bomb real bad. Journalists these days care nothing about factual reporting. There's a GD (or possibly LBN) thread about that right now (Woodward). To get viewership, they'll say anything, do anything. CNN wants to rivetted to the screen so you'll stay for commercial. Hence, they'll announce rumours, lies, delusions or pure fantasy just to keep your hand off the remote. It's especially suspicious when they're the only station reporting something. We dismiss Drudge for doing exactly the same thing.

Most homemade bombs aren't round. The only round bombs are early nuclear bombs, and "hush a boom" bombs from Rocky and Bullwinkle. There's no point.

The Oklahoma bomb is another example of "pure dumb luck". The blast wasn't powerful enough to do that kind of damage. What it did do was structurally damage the facade of the building, then gravity worked.

[MasterKey]

126. A lot a great links woody!

Wow,

Woody, a long list of replies and even a longer list of great links, Still trudging through them all.

Masterkey-- :)