TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 [83] 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »
exactly who is making the accusation against the engineers? because the latter half of that post is nonsense, the "white paper" you refer to still hasn't been found either, so i really wonder why people keep referring to it as if it is gospel.
the titanic was "designed" to be unsinkable too, and many people went on record saying as much too. means absolutely nothing.
| quote: |
In an attempt to explain away the complete implosion of the twin towers shortly after the planes hit, the study concluded that skyscrapers were not designed to withstand jetliner impacts, a claim completely disproved by historical studies and contemporary investigations. |
| quote: |
"Astaneh-Asl, who received money from the National Science Foundation to investigate the collapse, insisted most New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers." |
you do realize that there is a huge difference between a boeing 767 and a boeing 707 right? namely 80 metric tonnes of extra metal....
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut Government-Funded Investigators Accused Of WTC Cover-Up American Society of Civil Engineers lied about inability of skyscrapers to withstand airliner impacts  The American Society of Civil Engineers - an organization that was funded by FEMA to investigate the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11 - has been accused of engaging in a cover-up to protect the government, with critics charging the organization falsified conclusions that skyscrapers could not withstand getting hit by airplanes. The group has been forced to convene an investigative panel which could lead to a suspension in government funding. The Federal Emergency Management Agency paid the group about $257,000 to investigate the World Trade Center collapse and their report was released in 2002. In an attempt to explain away the complete implosion of the twin towers shortly after the planes hit, the study concluded that skyscrapers were not designed to withstand jetliner impacts, a claim completely disproved by historical studies and contemporary investigations. "Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a structural engineer and forensics expert, contends his computer simulations disprove the society's findings that skyscrapers could not be designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner," reports the Associated Press. "Astaneh-Asl, who received money from the National Science Foundation to investigate the collapse, insisted most New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers." The group are also under scrutiny for their investigation of the failure of New Orleans' levees during Hurricane Katrina. Raymond Seed, a levee expert at the University of California, Berkeley, "accused the engineering society and the Army Corps of collusion, writing an Oct. 20 letter alleging that the two organizations worked together "to promulgate misleading studies and statements, to subvert appropriate independent investigations ... to literally attempt to change some of the critical apparent answers regarding lessons to be learned." As we reported last year, architectural drawings of the World Trade Center that prove beyond any doubt that the official reports into the collapse of the towers misrepresented their construction were used by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) during their study, but not before they had signed legal documents which bound them to secrecy and demanded that they never use the information against the buildings' owners as part of a lawsuit. The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections. These facts were buried in the FEMA-funded ASCE report and contradictory conclusions were offered despite the fact that the group had access to the diagrams. Numerous different World Trade Center designers and construction specialists are on record as having ruled out the possibility that multiple commercial jetliner impacts could bring the towers down. Such comments were made on a regular basis ever since the towers were first conceived and built. A February 3, 1964 white paper which was written during the design phase of the towers stated, "The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." During a 1984-85 Office of Special Planning study into the vulnerability of the WTC to a terrorist attack, Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, assured investigators that whether the towers suffered a bomb attack or were hit by an airplane, there was "little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked." A February 27 1993 Seattle Times article entitled Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision quotes John Skilling, head structural engineer for the WTC. "We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said Skilling. "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there." In a telling afterthought, Skilling said that the only way the building could be brought down was by means of well-placed explosives rigged by top experts. "I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it," he said. In 2001, Leslie Robertson again stated, "The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane." "I designed it for a 707 to smash into it," he told a conference in Frankfurt Germany. Also in early 2001, Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, said on camera, "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting." As investigators have pointed out, immediately after 9/11 Leslie Robertson refused to discuss the collapse of the buildings with the media but he later recanted and agreed with NIST's conclusions - completely contradicting his previous statements and exhaustive studies carried out since the 60's about the towers' ability to withstand jetliner impacts. Allegations of cover-up directed at The American Society of Civil Engineers are just the latest chapter in a series of hammer blows for the credibility of the official 9/11 story, arriving on the back of last month's expos� of 9/11 Commission executive director Philip Zelikow's ties to the White House and his efforts to shield the Bush administration from responsibility for the terror attack. http://www.911blogger.com/node/14533 |
| quote: |
Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load. "However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage." He took note of the fact that smoke and fire spread throughout the building yesterday. He said that is possibly because the pressurizing system that stops the spread of smoke didn't work when the electric power went off. Skilling, 72, was not involved in the design of the building mechanics. Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down. "I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it." |
Jesus christ, people are still at this? No shit the building could have survived the impact of a 707 as it was designed to. It survived the impact of a 767 which is a considerably larger aircraft. What the designers did not plan for and what the building did not survive was the fire caused by massive amounts of burning jet fuel. In fact, the NIST noted this about the White Paper:
| quote: |
| "the effect of fires due to jet fuel dispersion and ignition of building contents was not considered in the 1964 analysis." |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by XaNaX Jesus christ, people are still at this? No shit the building could have survived the impact of a 707 as it was designed to. It survived the impact of a 767 which is a considerably larger aircraft. What the designers did not plan for and what the building did not survive was the fire caused by massive amounts of burning jet fuel. The intense heat of the fire melted steel supports (the "mosquito netting") and caused a loss of structural integrity in the upper floors causing them to sag and pull the entire building down starting from the top. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by XaNaX Jesus christ, people are still at this? No shit the building could have survived the impact of a 707 as it was designed to. It survived the impact of a 767 which is a considerably larger aircraft. What the designers did not plan for and what the building did not survive was the fire caused by massive amounts of burning jet fuel. In fact, the NIST noted this about the White Paper: The intense heat of the fire weakend steel supports (the "mosquito netting") and caused a loss of structural integrity in the upper floors causing them to sag and pull the entire building down starting from the top. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by XaNaX Jesus christ, people are still at this? No shit the building could have survived the impact of a 707 as it was designed to. It survived the impact of a 767 which is a considerably larger aircraft. What the designers did not plan for and what the building did not survive was the fire caused by massive amounts of burning jet fuel. In fact, the NIST noted this about the White Paper: The intense heat of the fire melted steel supports (the "mosquito netting") and caused a loss of structural integrity in the upper floors causing them to sag and pull the entire building down starting from the top. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by XaNaX Yeah, after I wrote it I realized I used the word melted when I meant to use weakened but the post was already quoted so it was too late for a ninja edit  There is absolutely no evidence of a controlled demolition while there is ample evidence that two large aircraft laden with thousands of gallons of jet fuel crashed into the towers at speeds in excess of 450mph and caused out of control fires. So fold up your tinfoil hats people and go look for your next conspiracy theory because this horse is dead and buried. |
.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z The NIST report also acknowledged the high improbability of their own hypothesis in the footnotes of their own report. It's also the only hypothesis they ever considered, evaluating or discarding any evidence that didn't fit their hypothesis. I'm am totally convinced by NIST thought, because it would be highly irrational for me to have an alternate perspective, that doesn't soley depend the controlled demolition theory, that has tons of more supporting evidence than the pancake theory. Anyways, fuck this thread and this topic. It's a dead horse regardless of what you believe did or didn't happen. Dissent is the new definition of insanity apparently, and skepticism is paranoia. Gotta love this age we live in. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by colonelcrisp im affraid the testimony of a mexican janitor does not surmount to "tons" of evidence. it amounts to heresay and opinion, nothing more, and certainly not expert opinion. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LazFX hey now... watch how you say "mexican" ha ha |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by colonelcrisp lol, sorry... Mexican... I made it a propper noun just for you |
9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says
"me and Bush...we go out and hang"
"why would they want to kill 3000 of their own infidels?"
| quote: |
| This Made Ashcroft Gag Translator keeps blowing 9-11 whistle on FBI; U.S. Keeps shutting her up by James Ridgeway May 25th, 2004 12:00 PM Sibel Edmonds, the translator, said in an interview Monday with the Voice that the Florida case illustrates the issues and evidence she has been trying to make public for two years. Edmonds claimed to have translated testimony in criminal and counter-intelligence cases involving different FBI field offices, going back into the late 1990s. Much of this involved tracking money, she said. Among the Farsi translators working for the FBI, she said, it was common knowledge that a longtime, highly regarded FBI "asset" placed in Afghanistan told the agency in April 2001 that he had information from his contacts there that bin Laden was planning a major attack, involving the use of planes, in one or another of big American cities�Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York among them. The agents who took down the information from the spy wrote up reports and sent them to their superiors. That was the last the agents heard of the matter. Edmonds said she had heard the details of the Afghan asset story in an unclassified meeting at the Capitol, but she cannot talk about the specifics because of a Justice Department gag order that classifies as secret what she has to say. She said, however, that "there are a lot of activities in the U.S. A lot of money . . . and these activities involve money laundering, drugs, a support network for terrorism . . . people in high places . . . [people] in the political arena." Cybercast News Service (cnsnews.com), part of the conservative watchdog Media Research Center, reports that Mehrzad Arbane, an Iranian convicted of drug smuggling and suspected of money laundering and smuggling people from the Middle East into the U.S., told an associate who had become a government informant in October 2001 that he "may have smuggled two of the hijackers who flew planes into the towers in New York on September 11, 2001." Arbane was convicted May 13 in a Florida federal court of importing cocaine. He is expected to stand trial in New York for harboring illegal aliens, including two from Iran. Jairo Velez, "well-known" for smuggling cocaine from Mexico and Colombia into the U.S., met Arbane in 1999, and the two went into business smuggling cocaine, according to court documents obtained by cnsnews.com. But two years later, Velez, spooked because Arbane had told him of having possibly transported the hijackers, became a government informant, providing the information used by prosecutors in their case against Arbane, according to cnsnews.com. Whether the U.S. is tracing the connections between Arbane and the hijackers is not known. However, Ecuador is one of the countries from which Arbane is believed to have operated, and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told a House Foreign Operations appropriations subcommittee in April 2002 that along the border between Ecuador and Colombia, "we have got . . . a bit of a problem with Al Qaeda itself and some Hezbollah elements." Armitage added, "Frankly we are afraid as we squeeze Colombia, with hopefully the assistance and support of the Congress, that like a balloon, some of the problems might balloon out in other areas. We want to do what we can to try to keep Ecuador from ballooning out." Most of the government's efforts to stop terrorists from entering the country are focused on airports and ports. Using drug dealers to smuggle terrorists adds a new dimension to the problem. Drug sales such as the trade in opium from Afghanistan are often used to help finance terrorist groups. Dealers have long been successful in confounding narcs, and it would be difficult if not impossible to ever know whether any terrorists they transported got into the country. Ironically, our victory in Afghanistan has led to a boom in opium selling�the Taliban had slowed the growing and harvesting of poppies. Edmonds can't tell what she may know because Attorney General John Ashcroft recently invoked an arcane law to make her statements "classified"�including previously public statements and journalism quoting her on the case. At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week, Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa summarized the Edmonds case in questioning FBI director Robert Mueller: "I would also like to, on a second point, figure out why the FBI is going back in time and classifying some pretty basic information that's already in the public sector in regard to classification of information that we have received in Congress from a whistle-blower, Sibel Edmonds. We have, for instance, an e-mail sent out by the chairman's office last week saying that the FBI is classifying two-year-old information that the committee got in two previous briefings. Ms. Edmonds worked for the FBI as a translator and was fired after she reported problems. As part of the committee's legitimate oversight, we looked into that. The e-mail I have is right here. And so I'm very alarmed with the after-the-fact classification. On the one hand, I think it's ludicrous, because I understand that almost all of this information's in the public domain, and has been very widely available. On the other hand, this classification is very serious, because it seems like the FBI would be attempting to put a gag order on Congress." Grassley added, "I don't think this is really about national security. If it were, the FBI would have done this a very long time ago. And in fact, you'd be trying to get information back that's already been given to us about Ms. Edmonds. http://www.villagevoice.com/news/04...o1,53783,6.html[/color] |
just another coincidence.....
Last-Minute Pilots, Passengers, and Flight Attendants: The Unexplained Oddity of 9/11
In all the valuable research that has been conducted into 9/11, a significant detail has so far been mostly overlooked: An examination of news reports and other accounts reveals that a surprising proportion of the people on the four targeted planes had only been booked onto those flights at the last minute, often the day before or even the morning of September 11. Pilots on three of the four planes, more than half of all the flight attendants, and many passengers--including almost half those on Flight 93--were not originally booked to be on those flights.
It is difficult to dismiss all this evidence as mere coincidence. There must be specific reasons that we do not yet know about. For the truth to be uncovered will require further study by independent researchers, scrutiny by the press, and proper formal investigations of the 9/11 attacks.
Below is a summary of these latecomers to the four planes: American Airlines Flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines Flights 175 and 93.
REPLACEMENT PILOTS
The pilot at the controls of Flight 11--the first plane to hit the World Trade Center--before it was supposedly hijacked was John Ogonowski. However, as the Georgetown Record reported: "American Airlines Captain Walter Sorenson of Groveland was scheduled to fly Flight #11 on Sept. 11, 2001. He was disappointed when he was replaced by Captain John Ogonowski, who had seniority over Sorenson and requested to fly that day. ... The last-minute change of pilots ... spared Sorenson's wife Sarah the untimely loss of a young husband." [1] On Flight 77, which supposedly hit the Pentagon, the pilot and co-pilot were Charles Burlingame and David Charlebois. But, as the New York Times reported: "Bill Cheng, an American Airlines pilot who normally flies Flight 77, changed his plans in late August [2001] and applied for time off on Tuesday [September 11] so he could go camping. When another pilot signed up for the slot, Mr. Cheng's application was accepted." [2] Whether it was Burlingame or Charlebois that replaced him is unstated. And the pilot of Flight 93 was Jason Dahl. But according to the Denver Post: "Dahl piloted United Flight 93 on Sept. 11 because he asked to. At his request, [his wife] traded for the flight on their home computer. He'd wanted to get back to Ken-Caryl Valley sooner to start celebrating their fifth wedding anniversary. Days after the request, Dahl's terrorist-invaded plane took a nose dive in a Pennsylvania field." [3] Dahl took Flight 93 in exchange for a flight he'd been booked on later that month. [4]
UNSCHEDULED FLIGHT ATTENDANTS
Flight 11: There were nine flight attendants on American Airlines Flight 11 the morning of 9/11. At least four of them were not originally booked to be on this flight, but had recently been assigned to it. Barbara "Bobbi" Arestegui "was not scheduled to work Flight 11 that day but had accepted extra flights. She was saving up vacation to take a trip with her boyfriend to Vermont at the end of this month." [5] Jeffrey Collman "didn't normally work the Boston-to-Los Angeles route but made an exception to get vacation time at the end of the month." [6] Jean Roger was a relatively new flight attendant, and every third month was placed on a "standby" work list. On September 11, "Someone called in sick and she had to go." [7] And Sara Low also "was not originally scheduled to work the flight." [8]
Flight 175: There were seven flight attendants on this plane on 9/11, at least four of whom had only recently been assigned to it. Robert Fangman was a reserve attendant for Flight 175, and was on it by chance. He replaced Elise O'Kane, who'd been on the flight regularly for the previous six months. When she was signing up for her flights for the month, O'Kane entered an incorrect code into the computer, which scheduled her instead for flights from Boston to Denver. She later said "she had never made such an error in 16 years as a flight attendant." She had subsequently "made several attempts to switch onto the flight, but had computer problems." [9] Another original attendant was Elaine Lawrence. However, "because she was going on vacation, she traded shifts with her close friend, Amy Jarret." [10] Lauren Gurskis was also one of the original attendants. "In August of [2001], however, she switched assignments--trip-traded, as flight attendants call it--so that she could drive her son to his first day of kindergarten." According to the Boston Globe, Kathryn Laborie was most likely the attendant that replaced her. [11] One more of the original attendants, Barbara McFarland, had "decided to spend an extra day with her son," and so she "swapped shifts with another attendant." The name of this attendant is unstated. [12]
Flight 77: Of the four attendants on this plane, at least two were not originally scheduled to be on it. Michele Heidenberger regularly flew from Washington's Reagan National Airport to Dallas, but on 9/11 was unusually flying out of Dulles Airport on Flight 77. When Heidenberger phoned her friend Toni Knisley, an administrator at Reagan Airport, shortly before boarding her plane, Knisley was surprised, saying: "What are you doing at Dulles? Aren't you flying your regular turn to Dallas today?" Heidenberger explained: "I'm working Flight 77 to LA because I want to take time off in October to go to Italy with [my husband] and the kids." [13] Renee May was only assigned to Flight 77 during the morning of 9/11. American Airlines had earlier called another attendant, Lena Brown, and asked her to take the flight, but Brown said she would be unable to get to the airport in time. "Renee May, the next flight attendant on American Airlines' list, accepted." [14]
Flight 93: At least three of the five attendants on this flight were not originally booked to be on it. Sandra Bradshaw "liked working first class," but "was in economy because she'd picked up Flight 93 late in the planning." She had "switched flights with another attendant." [15] Wanda Green "had been scheduled to fly Sept. 13, but Green, who also worked as a real estate agent, realized she had to handle the closing of a home sale Sept. 13. She'd phoned her best friend, fellow flight attendant Donita Judge, who opened United's computerized schedule and shifted Green to the Sept. 11 flight." [16] Deborah Welsh "usually avoided early-morning flights," and "was not originally slated to be on Flight 93, but was assigned to the flight when she swapped shifts." [17]
It wasn't just pilots and flight attendants who'd joined the doomed flights late. A large number of the passengers had similarly not originally been booked on these aircraft.
LAST-MINUTE PASSENGERS
Flight 11: Alexander Filipov "originally held a ticket for a Delta flight, but switched at the last minute to American Flight 11." [18] Edmund Glazer had got a call from his company's home office in Los Angeles the night of September 10, asking for his help on a major project. "In his obliging way, Mr. Glazer boarded Flight 11 the next morning." [19] Pendyala Vamsikrishna "was to leave Boston on Sept. 10, but hadn't finished his job, and rescheduled for the following day on American Airlines Flight 11." [20] Brian Dale "was supposed to have flown Monday night. But the Warren, NJ, man instead opted to fly out Tuesday morning." [21] Peter Hashem "had been scheduled to take an earlier flight but postponed the trip in order to make time to attend his son's soccer game." [22] Robin Kaplan had also been scheduled to take an earlier flight, but "she would have had to get up too early, so she didn't." [23] David Angell and his wife Lynn "were on board [Flight 11], even though they had originally planned to take a later flight." [24] David Kovalcin "wasn't supposed to fly to California until later this week." But his company's managers "were looking for someone to leave on Tuesday to discuss a hardware problem with a supplier. He volunteered." [25] Christopher Mello had originally "planned to return home on a red-eye flight the next day." [26] And Kenneth Waldie "was supposed to leave Wednesday, but he got the flight the day before." [27]
Flight 175: Touri Bolourchi "was not supposed to be aboard Flight 175, but she decided to stay a few extra days in Boston to visit her daughter and two grandchildren." [28] Francis Grogan "was not originally booked on Flight 175, but overcrowding on his original flight bumped him." [29] Mark Bavis "was originally scheduled for the 11 a.m. departure but pushed it up a few hours." [30] And Daniel Brandhorst, Ronald Gamboa, and their adopted son David, "changed their flight plans so they could return to Los Angeles from Boston on Sept. 11." Brandhorst's mother had "thought her son was flying the previous night." [31]
Flight 77: Barbara Olson, who flew on Flight 77 on 9/11, was originally "scheduled to fly to Los Angeles on the night of Sept. 10," but "changed her schedule ... to be with her husband on the morning of his 61st birthday." [32] Barbara Edwards "had gone to Connecticut for a wedding and was supposed to return home Saturday [September 8]." But, "her friends talked her into staying with them so she took the flight that crashed into the Pentagon." [33] Vicki Yancey "had planned to leave Washington earlier, but ticketing problems delayed her departure." [34] After a vacation with their daughter, husband and wife Shuyin Yang and Yuguang Zheng were "scheduled to leave for China on September 10." But as they had only finished their vacation on September 9, their daughter "felt it might be a hassle for my parents [to] leave [in] just like a couple hours and to get on the plane. So, I have them to reschedule their flight ticket to September 11." [35] Dora Menchaca was in Washington for two days of meetings. "The meetings ended late Monday [September 10], a day earlier than expected." So, "The next morning, flying on standby, she caught an earlier-than-scheduled departure to California." [36] Ruben Ornedo was originally scheduled to fly two weeks after 9/11. But "during a lull in an extended Washington business trip he seized the chance to rush home for a day or two and see his wife." [37] One group of passengers on Flight 77 comprised eight individuals: three teachers and three 11-year-old students who had been selected to participate in a program at the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, accompanied by two staff members of the National Geographic Society. According to a close friend of one of the teachers, Sarah Clark, "She was originally supposed to go to Florida, but two weeks [before 9/11] they changed it and told her she was going to California." [38]
There were likely more passengers who were only booked onto these flights at the last minute, but I have simply not yet come across the reports describing this. And it seems reasonable to assume there were even more of these late additions to the flights, where the details of these individuals' travel arrangements have so far gone unreported.
In the case of Flight 93, however, since the official story revolves around the heroism of the passengers who supposedly fought back against terrorists, we have the fortune that a lot more has been written about these individuals and how they came to be on that flight. What has been reported is extraordinary: Of the 33 passengers (excluding the four supposed hijackers), at least 16 had only recently been booked onto the plane. Some only joined it early in the morning of September 11.
Flight 93: Environmental lawyer Alan Beaven arranged to take Flight 93 on 9/11 the day before, as he was duty-bound to go to San Francisco to help settle a case after talks had just broken down. [39] "Normally," passenger Todd Beamer "would have left [for San Francisco] the night before." But on September 10 he had returned from a trip to Italy and wanted some time with his children before flying out. [40] Edward Felt "was on a last-minute business trip to San Francisco." [41] Sisters-in-law Patricia Cushing and Jane Folger had "moved up the time of their flight" in the days before 9/11. [42] Mark Bingham "had missed his plane the day before because of a hangover from a friend's birthday party." [43] Jeremy Glick "was supposed to leave Monday night, but there were problems at the airport: He decided to wait 'til Tuesday morning." [44] Nicole Miller's "Monday night ... flight back to the Bay Area was canceled due to weather. Miller re-booked on a flight the next morning." [45] Lou Nacke "only booked his seat the night before. He had a customer on the coast with an inventory problem and offered to fly out first thing Tuesday morning to fix it." [46] When she'd checked in at the airport on September 11, Georgine Corrigan switched to Flight 93, as it was non-stop, whereas her original plane would be making two stops on the way to San Francisco. [47]
A number of the Flight 93 passengers were originally booked on United Airlines Flight 91, scheduled to depart 1 hour 20 minutes after Flight 93, at 9:20 a.m. Deora Bodley "was supposed to take United Flight 91, but decided the night before to take one an hour earlier so she could get home sooner to her family and boyfriend." [48] Christine Snyder "called to check on her flight, Flight 91," early in the morning of September 11, and "moved up to Flight 93 for an earlier start." [49] Lauren Grandcolas "had been scheduled for United 91, but her car service had arrived at the airport early." [50] Husband and wife Donald and Jean Peterson "arrived at the airport early for United Flight 91 ... so they switched to Flight 93." [51] Tom Burnett, according to author Jere Longman, "had changed his plans. ... He would be leaving at 8 a.m. instead of taking Flight 91." (The San Francisco Chronicle said, however, that he'd originally been booked on a Delta Airlines flight that afternoon.) [52]
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14639
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut LAST-MINUTE PASSENGERS Flight 11: Alexander Filipov "originally held a ticket for a Delta flight, but switched at the last minute to American Flight 11." [18] Edmund Glazer had got a call from his company's home office in Los Angeles the night of September 10, asking for his help on a major project. "In his obliging way, Mr. Glazer boarded Flight 11 the next morning." [19] Pendyala Vamsikrishna "was to leave Boston on Sept. 10, but hadn't finished his job, and rescheduled for the following day on American Airlines Flight 11." [20] Brian Dale "was supposed to have flown Monday night. But the Warren, NJ, man instead opted to fly out Tuesday morning." [21] Peter Hashem "had been scheduled to take an earlier flight but postponed the trip in order to make time to attend his son's soccer game." [22] Robin Kaplan had also been scheduled to take an earlier flight, but "she would have had to get up too early, so she didn't." [23] David Angell and his wife Lynn "were on board [Flight 11], even though they had originally planned to take a later flight." [24] David Kovalcin "wasn't supposed to fly to California until later this week." But his company's managers "were looking for someone to leave on Tuesday to discuss a hardware problem with a supplier. He volunteered." [25] Christopher Mello had originally "planned to return home on a red-eye flight the next day." [26] And Kenneth Waldie "was supposed to leave Wednesday, but he got the flight the day before." [27] Flight 175: Touri Bolourchi "was not supposed to be aboard Flight 175, but she decided to stay a few extra days in Boston to visit her daughter and two grandchildren." [28] Francis Grogan "was not originally booked on Flight 175, but overcrowding on his original flight bumped him." [29] Mark Bavis "was originally scheduled for the 11 a.m. departure but pushed it up a few hours." [30] And Daniel Brandhorst, Ronald Gamboa, and their adopted son David, "changed their flight plans so they could return to Los Angeles from Boston on Sept. 11." Brandhorst's mother had "thought her son was flying the previous night." [31] Flight 77: Barbara Olson, who flew on Flight 77 on 9/11, was originally "scheduled to fly to Los Angeles on the night of Sept. 10," but "changed her schedule ... to be with her husband on the morning of his 61st birthday." [32] Barbara Edwards "had gone to Connecticut for a wedding and was supposed to return home Saturday [September 8]." But, "her friends talked her into staying with them so she took the flight that crashed into the Pentagon." [33] Vicki Yancey "had planned to leave Washington earlier, but ticketing problems delayed her departure." [34] After a vacation with their daughter, husband and wife Shuyin Yang and Yuguang Zheng were "scheduled to leave for China on September 10." But as they had only finished their vacation on September 9, their daughter "felt it might be a hassle for my parents [to] leave [in] just like a couple hours and to get on the plane. So, I have them to reschedule their flight ticket to September 11." [35] Dora Menchaca was in Washington for two days of meetings. "The meetings ended late Monday [September 10], a day earlier than expected." So, "The next morning, flying on standby, she caught an earlier-than-scheduled departure to California." [36] Ruben Ornedo was originally scheduled to fly two weeks after 9/11. But "during a lull in an extended Washington business trip he seized the chance to rush home for a day or two and see his wife." [37] One group of passengers on Flight 77 comprised eight individuals: three teachers and three 11-year-old students who had been selected to participate in a program at the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, accompanied by two staff members of the National Geographic Society. According to a close friend of one of the teachers, Sarah Clark, "She was originally supposed to go to Florida, but two weeks [before 9/11] they changed it and told her she was going to California." [38] There were likely more passengers who were only booked onto these flights at the last minute, but I have simply not yet come across the reports describing this. And it seems reasonable to assume there were even more of these late additions to the flights, where the details of these individuals' travel arrangements have so far gone unreported. In the case of Flight 93, however, since the official story revolves around the heroism of the passengers who supposedly fought back against terrorists, we have the fortune that a lot more has been written about these individuals and how they came to be on that flight. What has been reported is extraordinary: Of the 33 passengers (excluding the four supposed hijackers), at least 16 had only recently been booked onto the plane. Some only joined it early in the morning of September 11. Flight 93: Environmental lawyer Alan Beaven arranged to take Flight 93 on 9/11 the day before, as he was duty-bound to go to San Francisco to help settle a case after talks had just broken down. [39] "Normally," passenger Todd Beamer "would have left [for San Francisco] the night before." But on September 10 he had returned from a trip to Italy and wanted some time with his children before flying out. [40] Edward Felt "was on a last-minute business trip to San Francisco." [41] Sisters-in-law Patricia Cushing and Jane Folger had "moved up the time of their flight" in the days before 9/11. [42] Mark Bingham "had missed his plane the day before because of a hangover from a friend's birthday party." [43] Jeremy Glick "was supposed to leave Monday night, but there were problems at the airport: He decided to wait 'til Tuesday morning." [44] Nicole Miller's "Monday night ... flight back to the Bay Area was canceled due to weather. Miller re-booked on a flight the next morning." [45] Lou Nacke "only booked his seat the night before. He had a customer on the coast with an inventory problem and offered to fly out first thing Tuesday morning to fix it." [46] When she'd checked in at the airport on September 11, Georgine Corrigan switched to Flight 93, as it was non-stop, whereas her original plane would be making two stops on the way to San Francisco. [47] A number of the Flight 93 passengers were originally booked on United Airlines Flight 91, scheduled to depart 1 hour 20 minutes after Flight 93, at 9:20 a.m. Deora Bodley "was supposed to take United Flight 91, but decided the night before to take one an hour earlier so she could get home sooner to her family and boyfriend." [48] Christine Snyder "called to check on her flight, Flight 91," early in the morning of September 11, and "moved up to Flight 93 for an earlier start." [49] Lauren Grandcolas "had been scheduled for United 91, but her car service had arrived at the airport early." [50] Husband and wife Donald and Jean Peterson "arrived at the airport early for United Flight 91 ... so they switched to Flight 93." [51] Tom Burnett, according to author Jere Longman, "had changed his plans. ... He would be leaving at 8 a.m. instead of taking Flight 91." (The San Francisco Chronicle said, however, that he'd originally been booked on a Delta Airlines flight that afternoon.) [52] http://www.911blogger.com/node/14639 |
The flights were all less than 30% occupied, whereas the average occupancy rate was 70%+ for these airlines. So what are the odds that ALL FOUR would have such low passenger numbers? (Yes on a Tuesday)
Here are the actual passenger load statistics:
AA 11 Capacity: 255 ( Passengers: 92 ) %Full: 36%
UA 175 Capacity: 255 ( Passengers: 65 ) %Full: 25%
AA 77 Capacity: 239 (Passengers: 64 ) %Full: 27%
UA 93 Capacity: 239 ( Passengers: 44 ) %Full: 19%
Total Capacity: = 988
Total Passengers= 266
Average % full= 27%
I also travel frequently for business but I do book ahead of time which is the norm for business travelers. You do not want to get stuck wasting time (money) and returning on the red eye.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says |
^^
Pathetic.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut The flights were all less than 30% occupied, whereas the average occupancy rate was 70%+ for these airlines. So what are the odds that ALL FOUR would have such low passenger numbers? (Yes on a Tuesday) Here are the actual passenger load statistics: AA 11 Capacity: 255 ( Passengers: 92 ) %Full: 36% UA 175 Capacity: 255 ( Passengers: 65 ) %Full: 25% AA 77 Capacity: 239 (Passengers: 64 ) %Full: 27% UA 93 Capacity: 239 ( Passengers: 44 ) %Full: 19% Total Capacity: = 988 Total Passengers= 266 Average % full= 27% I also travel frequently for business but I do book ahead of time which is the norm for business travelers. You do not want to get stuck wasting time (money) and returning on the red eye. |
Oh well now we are not talking about your insignificant trips from Toronto to Ottawa are we?
The numbers I just posted are the facts you fukin retard. Learn to read.
im at a complete loss to understand what cretinrot is banging on about re the number of people on the planes.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut ^^ Pathetic. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lira I was going to mock you but... really, your argument was so deeply stated that I don't need to do that. Comes to show how confident you are about the whole thing |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.