Hi INN Folks,
Wasn't the total of the number of passengers on the hijacked flights around 200? (All the flights were under booked.) Seems I'd read this information mentioned on another site.

It appears that the aircraft used for UA flight 93 (tail number N591UA, see www.airdisaster.com/special/special-0911.shtml) is still listed as
"valid" in the FAA Aircraft Registry, as is the aircraft used for UA175 (N612UA). See 162.58.35.241/acdatabase/defimg.asp

(select "N-number" and type in the tail number without the "N")

My understanding is that the FAA rules call for prompt removal from the registry as soon as it is ascertained that the aircraft has been destroyed.

The other two 9/11 aircraft (N334AA / AA11 and N644AA / AA77) are marked as destroyed.


So, the two AA planes #11 and 77 not only have no government record of being scheduled to fly that day, but they are on record of having been destroyed???

sydney.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=36354&group=webcast

Whereas the two United flights #93 (Pennsylvania), #175 (2nd Tower) are still on the registry. Cleveland????



But there are also many new questions about some "200 passengers" of
that day...

Perhaps. According to the published passenger lists (see links below) there were a total of 257 (or 266) people on board on the four 9/11 flights: 199 passengers, 32 crew members, and 26 (or 35) persons not accounted for.

Maybe this does not mean anything, maybe it does. This is just basic data mining, the kind that the US govt uses when trying to sort out potential terrorists.

The links:

www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html
www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html

WHO IS THIS RETIRED NORAD ASSOCIATED COL. ALAN SCOTT? IN THE ABOVE ARTICLE BY WOODY BOX, HE SEEMS TO BE CRAFTING A COVER STORY IN MY OPINION FOR THE RECORD THAT IS ENTIRELY AT ODDS WITH WHAT WAS GOING ON AT CLEVELAND. More information about Col. Clark shows that he was involved with NORAD's simultaneous hijacking scenario planning...He claims he was "uninvolved" with the one going down on 9-11, though he was INVOLVED WITH EARLIER VERSIONS OF THE SIMULTANEOUS HIJACK SCENARIOS WITHIN NORAD. Read the bit about Col. Scott at the above article by Woody Box. Then get this background about Col. Scott from the below.

This is from the 9-11 "testimony":

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES
Public Hearing Friday, May 23, 2003 Hart Senate Office Building Room 216 Washington, DC

CONTENTS
PANEL 1: SEPTEMBER 11, 2001: THE ATTACKS AND THE RESPONSE
WITNESSES:
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION NORMAN MINETA;
MAJOR GENERAL CRAIG MCKINLEY, NORAD;
MAJOR GENERAL LARRY ARNOLD, (RET.);
COL. ALAN SCOTT (RET.);
LT. GENERAL MIKE CANAVAN (RET.), FORMER ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY

. . .




MR. BEN-VENISTE: Was not this information, sir, available to NORAD as of September 11th, 2001?

GEN. MCKINLEY: It's obvious by your categorization that those events all took place and that NORAD had that information. I would only add, sir, that the intelligence data that we postured our forces for and the training and the tactics and the procedures that we used to prepare our missions for support of the combatant commander of NORAD had hijacking as a primary intercept tactic. And we have some of the finest fighter pilots, as you know in the world, who are some of the best people in the world who can do their mission extremely well. But we had not postured prior to September 11th, 2001, for the scenario that took place that day.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Well, obviously it would be hard to imagine posturing for the exact scenario. But isn't it a fact, sir, that prior to September 11th, 2001, NORAD had already in the works plans to simulate in an exercise a simultaneous hijacking of two planes in the United States?

GEN. MCKINLEY: Colonel Scott, do you have any data on that? I'm not aware of that, sir. I was not present at the time.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: That was Operation Amalgam Virgo.

MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir. Specifically Operation Amalgam Virgo, which I was involved in before I retired, was a scenario using a Third World united -- not united -- uninhabited aerial vehicle launched off a rogue freighter in the Gulf of Mexico. General Arnold can back me up -- at the time one of our greatest concerns was the proliferation of cruise missile technology and the ability for terrorist groups to get that technology, get it close enough to our shores to launch it. In fact, this exercise -- in this exercise we used actual drone -- NQM-107 drones, which are about the size of a cruise missile, to exercise our fighters and our radars in a Gulf of Mexico scenario.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: You are referring to Amalgam 01, are you not?

MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir, Amalgam 01.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: I am referring to Amalgam 02, which was in the planning stages prior to September 11th, 2001, sir. Is that correct?

MR. SCOTT: That was after I retired, and I was not involved in 02. [ESCAPE FROM THE QUESTION]

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Will you accept that the exercise involved a simultaneous hijacking scenario?

MR. SCOTT: I was not involved in 02. [ESCAPE FROM THE QUESTION, HE WAS THERE WHEN IT WAS BEING PLANNED, AND CLAIMS THAT HE WAS UNINVOLVED THOUGH WAS INVOLVED WITH THE FIRST VERSION. LIE?]

GEN. MCKINLEY: [RESCUING SCOTT FROM QUESTIONING] Sir, I do have some information on 02, if you would allow me to read it for the record.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Please.

GEN. MCKINLEY: Amalgam Virgo in general, 02, was an exercise created to focus on peacetime and contingency NORAD missions. One of the peacetime scenarios that is and has been a NORAD mission for years is support to other government departments. Within this mission falls hijackings. Creativity of the designer aside, prior to 9/11, hijack motivations were based on political objectives -- i.e., asylum or release of captured prisoners or political figures. Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the script writers to invoke creativity and broaden the required response for players.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Well, isn't that a bit fatuous given the specific information that I've given you? It wasn't in the minds of script writers when the Algerians had actually hijacked the plane, which they were attempting to fly into the Eiffel Tower. And all of the other scenarios which I mentioned to you. I don't mean to argue with you. But my question is, sir, given the awareness of the terrorists use of planes as weapons, how is it that NORAD was still focusing outward protecting the United States against attacks from the Soviet Union or elsewhere, and was not better prepared to defend against the hijacking scenarios of a commercial jet laden with fuel used as a weapon to target citizens of the United States? When you say our training was vestigial, I think you said it in capsulated form. But would you agree that on the basis of the information available that there could be, could have been better preparedness by NORAD to meet this threat?

GEN. MCKINLEY: In retrospect, sir, I think I would agree with your comment.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: With respect to the bases that were available for protecting the East Coast, you -- and Colonel Scott has gone through the scrambling of aircraft -- I wanted to focus just on one flight, Flight 77, and then Secretary Lehman will ask you some more specific questions. With respect to Flight 77, sir, you testified previously before the House Armed Services Committee, and General Eberhardt was questioned -- you are familiar with his testimony?

GEN. MCKINLEY: Yes, sir.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Okay. He was questioned about Flight 77, and because of the use of Langley Air Base, which is 105 miles from our capital, as opposed to, say, Andrews Air Force Base, which is in the neighborhood, the question arises again about the positioning and the thought behind the positioning of fighter planes to protect our capital in an enhanced terrorist situation such as existed on September 10th, September 9th, 2002.

Let me ask you about Flight 77 again. The question was the timeline we have been given is that at 8:55 on September 11th American Airlines Flight 77 began turning east away from its intended course, and at 9:10 Flight 77 was detected by the FAA radar over West Virginia heading east. That was after the two planes struck the Trade Center towers. Is that correct, Colonel Scott?

MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Now, 15 minutes later, at 9:25, the FAA notified NORAD, according to this statement, that Flight 77 was headed toward Washington. Was that the first notification, 9:25, that NORAD or DOD had that Flight 77 was probably hijacked? And, if it was, do you know why it took 15 minutes for FAA to notify NORAD? General Eberhardt said, "Sir, there's one minor difference: I saw it as 9:24, which you do as well, that we were notified, and that's the first notification we received." "Do you know if that was the first notification to DOD?" "Yes, sir, that's the first documented notification that we received." And I want to focus on the word "documented," because it's very important for us to know when NORAD actually received notification, given the fact that planes had already crashed into the World Trade Center, and given I am sure the assumption that these were terrorist acts and there could be more coming, more planes coming.

Is it in fact correct, sir, that the first notification of any type that NORAD received was not until 9:24 with respect to Flight 77?

GEN. MCKINLEY: With your concurrence, sir, I would like to ask General Arnold to address that. He was on the floor that morning.

GEN. ARNOLD: Thank you. The simple answer to your question is I believe that to be a fact: that 9:24 was the first time that we had been advised of American 77 as a possible hijacked airplane. Our focus -- you have got to remember that there's a lot of other things going on simultaneously here, was on United 93, which was being pointed out to us very aggressively I might say by the FAA. Because our radars looking outward and not inward, the only way for us to know where anything was was for the FAA to pass along that information to us.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Well, is it not the case, General Arnold, that there was an open line established between FAA, NORAD and other agencies, including CIA and FBI, that morning?

GEN. ARNOLD: Well, I wasn't on that line at that particular time if that were the case. In fact, there is an open line established between our sectors at really the tactical level where they are controlling the aircraft talking to the FAA controllers from time to time. We did not have an open line at that time with the FAA. That is not accurate.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: You did not. You were not -- NORAD was not in contact --

GEN. ARNOLD: The continental United States NORAD region, my headquarters, responsible for the continental United States air defense, did not have an open line with the FAA at that time.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Was there some NORAD office that had an open line with the FAA --

GEN. ARNOLD: Our --

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Excuse me. Let me finish my question, please. Was there some NORAD office -- and you'll forgive us because we had asked for this information prior to the hearing from FAA and did not receive it -- but we are advised that there was indeed an open line between either the net or some other name given to a -- essentially an ongoing conference where under, in real time, FAA was providing information as it received it, immediately after the first crash into the Towers, we were told, with respect to each of the events that were ongoing of any remarkable nature? I see General McKinley is nodding.

GEN. MCKINLEY: I'd like to, if I may, address this, based on my research and review for this commission. It's my understanding that the FAA was in contact with our Northeast Air Defense Sector at Rome, New York. Understanding the relationship of how we defend North America from threats, NORAD located in Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado Springs, our continental NORAD region, our air operations center located at Tindel Air Force Base in Florida -- that's where the joint force air component commander resides. And then we have three sectors based on the size and volume of our country that handle that. It is my understanding from talking with both FAA and our supervisors at the Northeast Air Defense Sector in Rome, that those lines were open and that they were discussing these issues.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: So, is it fair to say that at least the NORAD personnel in Rome, New York, had information available to it in real time once it saw -- and we were advised that this occurred at 9:02, which was then 22 minutes earlier that Flight 77 first was observed deviating from its course, something which in the context of what was going on that day would be quite interesting, if not remarkable? Colonel Scott, any comments?

MR. SCOTT: Sir, I think it's also important to understand that like the CONUS region, the FAA is also broken down into subordinate command and control centers as well. I know that the Boston center was talking directly to the Northeast sector. I don't believe Flight 77 was in Boston Center's airspace. They were in Cleveland.

GEN. MCKINLEY: I think the FAA can report accurately on this, but I believe 77 was in Cleveland Center airspace when it developed the problem where they lost its radar image. And I believe -- and the FAA again can testify better to this -- they would take action based on losing that identification in Cleveland.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Well, actually I think according to the information that we have, the first indication was not a loss of radar contact but rather a course deviation with respect to Flight 77.

Now, I don't mean to take up any more time on this, because we are going to want to follow up on all of this information in great detail. But let me ask whether there is regularly made a tape recording of these open-line communications.

GEN. ARNOLD: (?) Not to my knowledge.

GEN. MCKINLEY: Not to my knowledge.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Does FAA to your knowledge keep a recording of these crisis situations?

GEN. ARNOLD: (?) I am unaware, but I would certainly direct that to them, please.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: To the best of your knowledge, you don't have anything further to shed light on when you first learned -- you, NORAD -- first learned of Flight 77's probable hijack status prior to 9:24 a.m.?

GEN. ARNOLD: (?) I can provide that for the record. I do not have any further knowledge at this time.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: We would ask that you do so.

GEN. ARNOLD: (?) Yes, sir.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will have some other questions after.

MR. KEAN: Secretary Lehman.

MR. LEHMAN: Thank you. General, I would also like to echo my colleagues' expression of great admiration for you and your predecessor, your command and your pilots, even though they might require long runways to land.

GEN. MCKINLEY: We understand.

MR. LEHMAN: One of the most serious responsibilities we have in addition to air security is identifying the real dysfunctions in our intelligence system that contributed to the tragedy. And we had prior as you know to your testimony Secretary Mineta, who indicated despite the fact of this long litany of events and intelligence reports of the growing probability that aircraft would be used as weapons, nothing ever got to him, and nothing apparently got to you, and I assume, General Arnold, nothing got to you. This would seem to be a pretty significant failure of our system, because it exists to provide product precisely to you, the most important users tasked with defending it. So I would like to ask -- we'll provide you a copy of this, which is from the Joint Inquiry staff statement -- if you could give us your studied assessment of what went wrong in the way you interact with, your command interacts with the intelligence community, and why the product did not get to you. These were pretty dramatic events, facts and intelligence reports. It would be very helpful to us to have your assessments as a customer of the system to what went so seriously wrong that you were still only looking out.

There's another, an issue that I would ask perhaps General Arnold to address, because there's a great deal of unease and distress, I think understandably, among many of the families that somehow those aircraft should have been shot down if people had not made mistakes. And I wonder if you would just take us through each flight, given the posture that NORAD was in at the time, which was national policy and not whatever based on erroneous intelligence perhaps. But given that posture and given the times that NORAD was notified of the deviation from -- the possibility of hijacking, could the aircraft on alert for instance at Otis have intercepted? And then if you could also take us through 77 and 93 as well with the F-16s, which -- and if you would tell us as you take us through what the armament was on the F-15s and the F-16s that were scrambled against 77 and 93.

GEN. ARNOLD: Thank you, sir, and I will try to do that to the best of my ability. And perhaps General McKinley has some data that he could shed light on, because I have been retired a little while, and do not have access to the staff for some of the very specifics on that. But I will try to do my best.

As you know from previous testimony from General Eberhardt to Congress, we were in the middle of a NORAD exercise at that particular time, which means that basically our entire staff was focused on being able to do the air operations center mission, which was our job to do. We had just come out of a video teleconference with the NORAD staff and with our folks at that particular time, when I was handed a note that we had a possible hijacking at Boston center, and it had come from the Northeast Air Defense Command, Colonel Bob Mahr (ph), who is commander up there, and he had requested that I call him immediately. And I was upstairs in our facility, immediately went downstairs, picked up the phone, asking on the way to my staff, "Is this part of the exercise?" Because quite honestly, and frankly we do do hijacking scenarios as we go through these exercises from time to time. But I realized that it was not. This was real life.

And I also remembered as I went downstairs, before I even talked to him, that it had been a long time since we had had a hijacking, but the fact that we had reviewed the procedures of what it is we do for a hijacking, because we were in the middle of an exercise.

www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm


2.

Scott appears here, vetting the Toledo, Ohio response once more for the corporate media:


Article published Sunday, December 9, 2001

SPECIAL REPORT
Toledo's Air Guard called to defend U.S. on Sept. 11
Local pilots some of first into air


F-16s from the Air Guard unit at Toledo Express Airport, like this one flying over Kuwait in 1998, took to the skies on Sept. 11.
( U.S. AIR FORCE )

Zoom


By MICHAEL D. SALLAH
and JOE MAHR
BLADE STAFF WRITERS


In the frantic minutes after terrorists downed three hijacked airliners in New York and Washington, the Air Force sent up jets ready to shoot down any other planes that threatened the East Coast.

Jets from a Massachusetts base circled New York. Jets from Virginia soared over the nation's capitol.

And, guarding the rest of the nation in the first chaotic minutes of the crisis: F-16s from Toledo.

Federal military officials recently confirmed that the 180th Fighter Wing - an Ohio Air National Guard unit based at Toledo Express Airport - was the first unit outside the East Coast to answer the Air Force's plea for immediate help.

And had the last hijacked plane continued west - or had any other hijacked plane headed across the heartland - the Toledo fighter wing was the only unit immediately available to carry out the ultimate act: Shoot it down.

"They had the fuel. They had guns. That's what was needed," said retired Lt. Col. Alan Scott, who has been analyzing the air responses for the Air Force.

Three months after the worst terrorist attack in America's history, new details are emerging about the frenzied minutes from the time the first plane hit the World Trade Center to the time the nation had grounded every civilian plane in the sky.

The man responsible for coordinating the air defense strategy over the hard-hit area - Lt. Col. Robert Marr - confirmed to The Blade last week that the Toledo unit played a critical role as the nation's military geared up for any more attacks.

"It just had a phenomenal response on Sept. 11," Colonel Marr said from his command post in Rome, N.Y.

The new details also reveal a key weakness in the nation's air defense system on Sept. 11 - a weakness that left the interior of the nation more vulnerable.

Up until that day, the military's radar trackers had a Cold War posture of looking outside America's borders for threatening invaders. Those radars were positioned along the continental coasts, leaving blind spots in America's interior.

That meant the military was forced to rely on civilian air traffic controllers at the Federal Aviation Administration to detect what was in the skies - something they're now trying to fix.

"We're working very hard in trying to achieve an interior look," said Colonel Scott, now an Air Force consultant, whose first briefing of the issue was broadcast on C-Span last week.

Toledo's response on Sept. 11 is believed to be the first time the unit has answered a call from the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD -

. . .

www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20011209&Category=NEWS28&ArtNo=112090036&Ref=AR


SUMMARY of what I take from the information about OHIO and the response

a. seems that these planes were landing at a Cleveland Airport, and that Scott later dissembles officially about their exact whereabouts or times.
b. Garvey actually calls in to Cheney in the White House and said that UAL93 goes down in Ohio.
c. Scott massages the information to the public about both NORAD at the 9-11 commission and
d. Scott massages the information about the Cleveland landings
e. Scott massages the information about the Toledo, Ohio 'response', for public consumption--appears on C-SPAN.
f. Scott was involved in Amalgam Virgo scenario 01, and claims to be 'uninvolved' in the 02 version.
g. Scott is 'retired' though seems strangely, in my opinion, to be very knowledgeable and visible on these issues....
h. Perhaps someone should look into Col. Scott more. It may highlight the response issues and the scenario issues and the Ohio issues at the same time.

This article is available on NEXIS.

Copyright 2001 Bergen Record Corporation The Record (Bergen County, NJ) September 14, 2001 Friday All Editions SECTION: NEWS; Pg. a18 LENGTH: 900 words

HEADLINE: IN RURAL HAMLET, THE MYSTERY MOUNTS; 5 REPORT SECOND PLANE AT PA. CRASH SITE; THE INVESTIGATION

SOURCE: The Record

BYLINE: JEFF PILLETS, Staff Writer

DATELINE: SHANKSVILLE, Pa.

BODY: As investigators continued to search for clues to the crash of United Flight 93, people in this Allegheny Mountains hamlet were talking about a parallel mystery that one man called "the damndest darn thing" he'd ever seen.

In separate interviews Thursday, five residents who live and work less than four miles from the crash site said they saw a second plane flying erratically within minutes of the crash of the Boeing 757 that took off from Newark two hours earlier Tuesday morning.

Susan Mcelwain of Stonycreek Township said a small white jet with rear engines and no discernible markings swooped low over her minivan near an intersection and disappeared over a hilltop, nearly clipping the tops of trees lining the ridge.

It was less than a minute later, Mcelwain said, that the ground shook and a white plume of smoke appeared over the ridge. "It was so close to me I ducked," Mcelwain said. "I heard it hit and saw the smoke. All I could think of was how close I came to dying. " About a mile north on Buckstown Road, Dennis Decker and Rick Chaney were at work making wooden pallets when they heard an explosion and came running outside to watch a large mushroom cloud spreading over the ridge.

"As soon as we looked up, we saw a midsized jet flying low and fast," Decker said. "It appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then it turned fast and headed out. " Decker and Chaney described the plane as a Lear-jet type, with engines mounted near the tail and painted white with no identifying markings.

"If you were here to see it, you'd have no doubt," Decker said. "It was a jet plane, and it had to be flying real close when that 757 went down. If I was the FBI, I'd find out who was driving that plane. " Late Thursday afternoon, federal agents who spoke to reporters at the crash site said "there was no evidence as of yet" that a second plane was nearby when Flight 93 plunged into a strip mine.

Earlier Thursday, FBI Special Agent William Crowley said investigators could not rule out that a second plane was nearby during the crash. He later said he had misspoken. He dismissed rumors that a U.S. military jet had intercepted the plane before it could strike a target in Washington, D.C. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, President Bush's nominee for chairman of the joint chiefs of staff rejected rumors that the military had shot down the hijacked plane.

"The armed forces did not shoot down any aircraft," Air Force Gen.

Richard Myers said.

An official at the Cleveland Air Traffic Control Center in Overland, Ohio, which tracked Flight 93 as it turned in the sky and tracked eastward from the Cleveland area, said "no comment" when asked if there was any record of a second plane over the crash site.

"That's something that the FBI is working on and I cannot talk about," said Richard Kettel, head of tower operations at the Cleveland center. He spoke shortly before the FBI announced it had no evidence of a second jet.

About 16 miles north of the crash site, at the Cambria County Airport near Johnstown, officials said they had seen neither Flight 93 nor a second plane Tuesday morning despite perfect visibility.

Tower Chief Dennis Fritz said he began searching the horizon for any signs of the 757 around 9:20 a.m. when the Cleveland Control Center radioed that Flight 93 was headed in their direction and was apparently out of control. Fritz says Cleveland control was urging him to evacuate the tower.

"On the first call from Cleveland, they said a 757 was heading in our direction at about 6,000 feet and descending," Fritz said. "They were repeatedly trying to raise the pilot on the radio, but there was no answer. " Within minutes, Fritz said, he began to move people from the tower but hesitated to abandon it completely because he felt the incoming plane might be in distress and need to make an emergency landing.

Shortly after 10 a.m., Fritz said, Cleveland control called back and said the 757 had veered sharply south and was no longer headed for the Cambria airport. Because the airport has no radar, Fritz said, he could not track the movements of Flight 93.

Around Shanksville, news that investigators found the flight data recorder -- one of two black boxes aboard the plane -- did little to abate a growing sense of mystery over the sighting of a second jet.

Susan Custer said she saw a small white jet streaking overhead.

"Then I heard the boom and saw the mushroom cloud. " Robin Doppstadt was working inside her family food-and-supply store when she heard the crash. When she went outside, she said, she saw a small white jet that looked like it was making a single circle over the crash site.

"Then it climbed very quickly and took off. " "It's the damndest darn thing," said Dale Browning, a farmer.

"Everybody's seen this thing in the sky, but no one can tell us what it is. " Meanwhile, at least one New Jersey family that lost a loved on in the crash traveled Thursday to a resort about 30 miles from the crash site.

About 80 staff members of United Airlines and 30 Red Cross volunteers are at the Seven Springs resort to assist the families.

"We'll be the shoulder to cry on, the hand to hold," said Jill Bode of the American Red Cross¬ local chapter.

Staff Writer Pete Caldera contributed to this article, which contains material from news service reports.

The Bureau of transportation website contains search pages, where one can pull up detailed statistics about the history of which flights have been scheduled for which airports on any given day. Go to www.bts.gov/ntda/oai/index.shtml

and click on "detailed statistics" where one can search records of scheduled and actual departure times, arrival times, diversions and cancellations by departure airport, arrival airport, airline and flight number. Searches for Sept 11 2001 reveal that the flights AA 11 and AA 77 did not exist. They were not scheduled that day. Here are the search results which I encourage everyone to check for themselves. A search for UA flights from Newark on Sept 11, 2001 shows 0093 to SF was scheduled at 8.00 and actually departed at 8.01. It is listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination. A search for UA from Boston on that day shows 0175 to LA was scheduled for 8.00 and actually departed at 7.58. Also listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination.

The term "diverted" does not specify any differentiation between legally diverted, hijacked or crashed, so the data gives no indication one way or the other as to truth of the official story about what happened to them, but it does confirm that they departed as per the official story and did not arrive at their destinations.

A search for AA flights from Boston that day does not list 0011. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA that day was 0181 at 11:00 A search for AA flights from Dulles that day does not list 0077. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA was 0135 at 11.15.

Here's a different search method. By returning to the search page URL listed earlier, and clicking on "summary statistics", one can find the historical reliability and punctuality of specific flights over a period of time, by specifying the airline and flight number and defining the time period. The search then returns figures on average delays in departure and arrival times and percentages of cancelled or diverted flights. If one searches specifically for UA 175 or UA 93 narrowed down to Sept 11 only, the search returns the result of "diverted" for each flight. A similar search for either AA 11 or AA 77 on that date returns "no data found".

If you search for AA 11 or AA 77 on different days, you will find that they were regularly scheduled flights right up to Sept 10. AA 11 was scheduled daily from Logan to LA at 8.00, and AA 77 from Dulles to LA at 7.45. On Sept 11, they were not scheduled. Not cancelled. Just not scheduled.

On Sept 12, they re-appear in the schedule (obviously as cancelled for the next few days) up until Sept 20 when both flights change their numbers. Thus the official figures from the Bureau of Transportation statistics indicate that neither AA 11 nor AA 77 flew on Sept, 11 2001. This solves the question of what happened to them. Nothing. Because the flights did not exist. This is consistent with other evidence which shows that they were not the objects responsible for the Pentagon and Nth WTC tower incidents.

This still leaves unanswered the question of what happened to the passengers alleged to be aboard the non existent flights.

Why was a private plane owned by Warren Buffet (second richest man in the world) "tracking" flight 93?


"The government said it would play the cockpit voice recordings from Flight 93 and the executive jet in open court, but asked Brinkema to keep both recordings and their transcripts from dissemination outside the courtroom.

An official for NetJets, a company that sells shares in private business aircraft, confirmed that the plane tracking Flight 93 belonged to the company."

http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/080902/new_080902020.shtml

Lonestar: There are 6 points to his argument-
and this story is getting a lot of attention there are close to 50 thousand reads now

..........................................................Delta 1989...................Flight X

Moment of landing................................10:10...........................10:45

Begin of evacuation...............................12:30...........................11:15

Number of passengers............................69................................200

Passengers brought to............. ..........FAA/Airport...................NASA


Exact location.................................Runway 18/36 ............Runway 28/10

.....................................................near I-X Center..........near NASA Center

Hyperlinks considered, this piece pretty much sums up what really went down on September 11, 2001.
memes.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1663
Mitre Corp., Warren Buffet, Global Hawk, and September 11, 2001

Carl Hammond, 37, was a passenger on board the hijacked United Airlines Flight 175 that crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. He also was a physicist for Mitre Corporation, a company that peddles Global Hawk (remote piloting) technology. The strongest case has been made that Global Hawk was employed in electronically hijacking the planes in question regarding September 11. Warren Buffet heads Mitre Corp. as well as Berkshire-Hathaway, another CIA front for the sale of remotely controlled pseudo-terrorism.

As well, Mitre Corp. has been working with Lincoln Laboratories (at the Massachusettes Institute of Technology - MIT) on many pursuits deemed necessary to the accomplishment of the human-machine interface. Recently, NASA's Ames Research Center web site reported, scientists were able to land a Boeing 757 by nerve impulses alone - by thinking about it.

Mitre Corp. also makes Biz Jets, which CEO's all over the world are buying up as the latest fad. Of course, this means that Warren Buffet, consumate money launderer and second in wealth in the US only to Mr. William Gates, the very man that may have been at the heart of the play calling on September 11 (he was at least playing along), makes the machines the powerful fly in. Fear of death always works, doesn't it?

During his career, Carl Hammond worked at MIT, the institute mentioned above that is seeking total cyborg awareness. Carl Hammond ALSO worked on Global Hawk technologies, it is safe to presume, when he worked at Georgia Tech, home to DARPA's UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) program.

The NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) demonstrated its new satellite capabilities (NRO payload launched into space on September 8, 2001) and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA - "the eyes of America") gained a new director one month prior to that fateful day. Considering all of this, one gets a pretty clear picture of where all those 'Star Wars' dollars went. James R. Clapper is the man named to head NIMA and he comes from Booz, Allen, & Hamilton which is a client for Blessed Relief, the charity said to be a front for Osama Bin Laden. Booz, Allen, & Hamilton also works closely with DARPA. DARPA is, of course, closely aligned with John Poindexter, head of Total Information Awareness and the guy that called the shots in Iran-Contra.

My question is no longer, "Who pulled it off?" My question is, "Were these people killed for knowing too much or were they witness protected."

Woody has his Flight X, suspected of being United Airlines Flight 93 which crashed near Shanksville, PA, landing at Cleveland Hopkins Airport at 10:47 a.m. Flight 93 crashed, however, at 10:06:05 a.m. plus or minus a few seconds, according to the seismological record and several Internet sources,
including A.K. Dewdney (10:03 a.m. according to the F.A.A., I think it was). How can Flight X have been UA93?

Concerning Woody's Point #5 regarding the location of the plane after landing-

OK, we know that Delta 1989 didn't land on Runway 10/28, the east-west runway with Nasa Glenn Research Center near it's western end. At 6015 feet, it's much too short for a 767 to attempt a landing.

Likewise, at 6415 feet, the north-south runway, Runway 18/36 with the I-X Center located at it's southern end, is too short for the 767 to have landed there.

That only leaves two runways. Runway 6L/24R which is 6800 feet (still too short) and Runway 6R/24L which is 8999 ft. My guess is that Delta 1989 landed on the longer of the two, Runway 6R/24L coming in from the Northeast and proceeding to the southwest end of the runway.

Map of Cleveland Runways:

Note that in the map below there are three parallel runways-- 6R/24L, 6C/24C and 6L/24R. At the time of the attacks there were only two parallel runways - 6R/24L is the 8999 foot runway whose southern end is the closest to the I-X Center. I believe Runway 6C/24C was formerly known as 6L/24R. After the third parallel runway was built to the north of that one, I *think* it's designation became 6L/24R and the old 6L/24R was renamed 6C/24C

www.airport-technology.com/projects/cleveland/cleveland2.html

If you look at the above map, you can see that a plane landing on 6R/24L could land, go all the way to the southwestern end of the runway, turn left going east and right off the end of the runway, there is what appears to be a holding area between the end of Runway 6R/24L and the I-X Center. There appears to be another holding area slightly to the northeast of that one. I think Delta 1989 was most likely at one of these two holding areas, between the southwestern end of Runway 6R/24L and the I-X Center.

This location would match what the Plain-Dealer said in their story.

"The plane sat on airport property between the terminal, the NASA Glenn Research Center and the International Exposition Center for about two hours."

This location also matches the description that the Delta passenger gave in her account - "our plane was directed to go to an isolated area of the airport."

Note also on NASA Glenn's website for an exhibit they held earlier this month it says:

www.grc.nasa.gov/Doc/visitgrc.htm

"NOTE: Free parking at the IX Center with shuttles to NASA Glenn."

No doubt after waiting for two hours on the plane, those Delta passengers probably disembarked, boarded shuttle busses brought over from the I-X Center and were transported to the NASA Glenn Research Center for questioning.

But Woody's contention is that


"This is the final proof that we have to do with two different planes. Both planes were sitting on a runway, but miles away from each other. One plane was at the west end of runway 28/10 near the NASA center (point 10 in the map). This is confirmed by Associated Press and an eyewitness (5A)."

The Associated Press article to which he refers does not confirm that the Delta flight was at the west end of Runway 10/28. It merely says that the plane was "sitting on a runway at the airport's west end." The southwestern end of Runway 6R/24L is further west than the western end of Runway 10/28.

Since the position where the Delta plane stopped is basically in the southwest corner of the airport, it could correctly be described as being both at the western end of the airport or the southern end of the airport. If I were describing the plane's position near NASA Glenn and Runway 10/28 I would describe it as being at the north end of the airport.

Regarding the eyewitness report (Rudy)

Woody tries to support his arguement by saying

"Rudy K was on the way home from Toledo to Rochester, N.Y., taking Interstate 480. This highway runs parallel to runway 28/10, a few hundred yards more to the North. The I-X-Center is three miles away - too far away for Rudy K's eyes to recognize vehicles. He was watching a plane near the northern boundary of the airport. His report confirms the existence of a plane near the NASA Center.."

As they say in the Hertz commercials -- Not exactly.
And BTW, did you notice how Woody described Rudy observing a plane that was obviously on the NORTHERN boundary of the airport? That's how I said I would have described that location a few paragraphs above. That's how the Associated Press would have described it had the Delta plane been there. But the AP said "sitting on the WESTERN end of the airport." We can conclude that they were referring to the southwestern end of Runway 6R/24L.

At any rate, from that particular stretch of I-480 that Woody is describing that runs parallel to Runway 10/28 a few hundred yards to the north, Rudy would not have been able to see the vehicles had they been at the southwest end of the airport. But again - we need to look at a map.

Go to yahoo maps and look at a map of Hopkins International Airport. You can do this by either using the airport code of CLE or the physical street address of 5300 Riverside Drive, Cleveland, OH 44135. Zoom out until you can see the entire airport and I-480.

You see that as I-480 approaches the airport from the west, the highway is a little further south and then makes a slight
curve towards the northeast then a little later turns back heading due east just north of the airport's northern boundary.

On that northwesterly stretch of highway (that approaches the airport's northwest corner before turning back to the east) is where Rudy most likely saw the Delta plane as it sat near the end of Runway 6R/24L. By glancing out his passenger side window he could have easily seen the plane and the flashing lights of the emergency vehicles about a mile and a half away.

Woody continues:

"The other plane was sitting at the south end of runway 18/36 near the I-X-Center (point 36), also confirmed by two eyewitnesses (5B). The geographic conditions on the airport suggest that the passengers at the West end were taken to the NASA Center and the passengers at the South end to the FAA headquarters"

He then relates a personal account from a firefighter.

"Responding back to our firehouse my heart started pounding faster as we became closer to our station, which is only a few hundred yards from the south side of the airport. The second tower now had collapsed. There it was a huge plane standing eerily still. Police, EMS and fire are positioned in the distance. -- Scott Boulton, Cleveland firefighter."

Woody reasons that:

"Boulton works with the fire department of Brookmark, a small city south-east of Hopkins Airport. His station is on Holland Street, just opposite the end of runway 18/36 ("only a few hundred yards from the southside of the airport"). So he is talking of the plane near the I-X Center, too."

Although I agree that he is talking about the plane at the I-X Center, I think some of the facts presented are wrong. First off, the fire station is located at 17401 Holland Rd, Brook Park, OH 44142 -- about 1.3 miles due east of the I-X center and Runway 18/36 and a bit further from the southwestern end of Runway 6R/24L. If you look at the address on a map like yahoo the stretch of Holland Rd. that runs between Engle (close to the fire station) and Eastland (close to the airport) is 1.1 miles, so his station is more than a few hundred yards from the runway.

In his account, the firefighter mentioned that he observed the plane as he was approaching his station (from the hospital where he had been) My guess is that he was coming from Southwest General Health Center, 18697 E. Bagley Rd, Middleburg Heights, OH 44130. The hospital is about one and a half miles southeast of the airport.

Going to yahoo maps and entering diving directions from the hospital to the fire station, one can see that the normal route would be to come out of the hospital and turn right onto Bagley and go east to Engle Rd. You'd turn left on Engle and go north up to Holland, the turn right on Holland and into the fire station.

However, since the fireman had already been alerted about a possible situation at the airport they probably wanted to take another route that had them passing closer to the airport even if it was a mile or so out of the way. I think they most likely exited the hospital and turned left onto Bagley going west to Eastland Road, then made a right onto Eastland and continued north, crossing Sheldon Rd. continuing further north up to Holland Rd.

While they were on the stretch of Eastland
Rd. between Sheldon and Holland -- that's when they would have had their best view of the plane. The intersection of Eastland and Holland was the closest they ever came to the plane .3 or .4 miles away. Once they reached that intersection, they would have turned right onto Holland and headed east (away from the airport) 1.1 miles towards Engle Rd. and their station just beyond the intersection of Engle and Holland. Don't take my word for it -- look at a map.

I go into such great detail to make the point that although the plane was on the south (or west) side of the airport, that doesn't necessarily mean it was near Runway 18/36. I believe it would have been at the end of Runway 6R/24L because that puts the plane a bit further away from the I-X Center in case there had been some kind of trouble.

Therefore we can conclude that there was only one plane (Delta Flight 1989) and that after landing it sat in a remote area near the southwestern boundary of the airport a safe distance away from the I-X Center.

Here is an article dated Sept. 11, 2001 that alludes to the presence of two planes:

thepost.baker.ohiou.edu/archives3/sep01/091101/brief16.html

Here's the text:
by Paul Singer
The Associated Press

CLEVELAND - No explosives were found aboard a Delta flight from Boston that was forced to land at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport because of fears it had been hijacked, city officials said.

The Federal Aviation Administration had been informed at 9:45 a.m. of a possible hijacking of a plane headed for Cleveland, said FBI spokesman Mark Bullock.

Flight 1989 to Los Angeles was not hijacked but was grounded by Delta because it was in the same flight pattern as a plane that was hijacked and struck the World Trade Center in New York, Bullock said.

The plane landed about 10:45 a.m. today with 78 passengers aboard, airport officials said.

The Boeing 767 was evacuated and searched, said Della Homenik, spokeswoman for Mayor Michael R. White. Passengers were taken to a nearby NASA facility.

FBI spokesman Bob Hawk said that since the Delta plane left Boston about the same time as the hijacked plane, passengers were being interviewed to see if they saw anything unusual this morning.

After the plane landed, the airport was closed and bomb-sniffing dogs were brought to baggage pickup areas.

Meanwhile, White said a second airplane in distress had passed through Cleveland airspace Tuesday morning before being handed off to Toledo.

Officials at Toledo Express Airport did not immediately have any information about the plane.