Did the passengers of AA 11 embark the wrong plane in Boston?

Since 9/12/01 we are told that the passengers of AA 11 were waiting at gate 26 and boarding the plane there.

Now look at this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/16/national/16TEXT-FLIGHT11.html?ex=1071378000&en=4b6d66a63bf99b3a&ei=5070

///// 7:45:48 -- Ground Control 1: American eleven heavy boston ground gate thirty two you're going to wait for a Saab to go by then push back. /////

Gate 32???

The distance between gate 26 and gate 32 is about 1000 ft.

Any comments?

I'm sure - it always is, huh?

Good find. I suggest you look more into it. What about the gates for the other flights? More references to the gates for this flight? Is it a simple typo or routine gate change, or what?

I really can't comment on this post, but I wonder if you've been able to research any of the maintenence records for the 4 planes. I'd be interested if any of the planes had unusual or extended maintence shortly before 9/11...have you looked into this angle at all?

Too much stuff to research! Seems everything related to 9/11 has weird oddities associated with it. It's like the Mystery Spot in Santa Cruz, CA. ;)

///Good find.///

Thanks, Paul. I'm honoured.

///I suggest you look more into it.///

Done that already.

/// What about the gates for the other flights? ///

The information on the other flights is much thinner. Flight 175 was starting at gate C-19, but there is no transcript (why not? Why doesn't this transcript include the ground phase of flight 175?)

///More references to the gates for this flight? Is it a simple typo or routine gate change, or what?///

I think we can exclude typos (alphabetically written numbers!) as well as acoustic faux pas (twenty-six=thirty-two?). We should also exclude an incompetent ground controller talking to another plane than he's looking at. And we can be sure that the ground controller is confirming the pilot's request for pushing back (maybe "AA 11 gate 32 would like to push back" or something like that), this being cut off at the beginning.

So I think we should take gate 32 for real.

Since 9/12/01 we are told that the passengers of AA 11 were waiting at gate 26 and boarding the plane there

this is true?

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

Typing "Flight 11" and "Gate 32" into Google, I got one hit back:

http://www.free-market.net/forums/main0108/messages/464978365.html

(Boston Globe) American Airlines Flight 11 left at 7:59 a.m., on time for a nonstop flight to Los Angeles, according to a Massport official. There were no reports that anything unusual happened in or around the jet, which Massport officials believe was highjacked by terrorists, prior to takeoff at 7:45 a.m. One airport employee, who asked not to be identified, said the American flight left on time from Gate 32 in Terminal B, and that nothing unusual was apparent. The employee said airline workers learned almost simultaneously that there had been explosions at the World Trade Center and that air traffic control had lost contact with the American flight.

---

It appears to be an excerpt from the Boston Globe. I'll have to dig up the whole article later. So it would seem to not be a simple matter of a typo, but there are two gates being referred to.

By the way, I like the tone of that excerpt. "Absolutely nothing unusual to see here. Repeat: nothing unusual! Now move along." ;)

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

BTW, it is not uncommon to ask for a link when posting some information?

I did a Lexis Nexis search on Flight 11 gate 32, and Flight 11 Gate 26.

Here are the results.

Other than sloppy journalism I have no way to explain this. I will say that the ATC's at Boston most likley know where the planes depart from.

Flight 11 , Gate 32

The Boston Globe September 11, 2001, Tuesday ,SECOND EDITION

One airport employee, who asked not to be identified, said the American flight left on time from Gate 32 in Terminal B, and that nothing unusual was apparent. The employee said airline workers learned almost simultaneously that there had been explosions at the World Trade Center and that air traffic control had lost contact with the American flight.

Patriot Ledger (Quincy, MA) September 11, 2002 Wednesday South Edition

At 7:40 a.m. today, about 200 American Airlines employees gathered at Gate 32 at Logan Airport, the point of departure for Flight 11 exactly one year before. They observed the anniversary with a memorial service for the crew and passengers aboard the hijacked flight, which crashed into the World Trade Center in New York at 8:46.

Boston Herald September 12, 2002 Thursday ALL EDITIONS

The day of remembrance started at Terminal B with a private service for about 200 American Airlines employees. They gathered to honor their lost colleagues at Gate 32, where Flight 11 began its doomed trip last year.


Flight 11 , Gate 26

Boston Globe September 12, 2001, Wednesday ,THIRD EDITION

The American flight left from Gate 26 in Terminal B, and the United flight from Gate 19 in Terminal C. One airport employee said nothing unusual was apparent when the American flight left, and airline workers learned almost simultaneously that there had been explosions at the World Trade Center and that air traffic control had lost contact with the American flight.

The Boston Globe September 12, 2001, Wednesday ,THIRD EDITION

American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767, took off from Gate 26 in Terminal B at 7:59 a.m., carrying 92 passengers and crew members. That jet is believed to have been hijacked and flown into the World Trade Center shortly before 9 a.m.

The Boston Globe September 16, 2001, Sunday ,THIRD EDITION

John Ogonowski parked his pickup truck in the employee parking lot at Logan and made the familiar stroll through Terminal B, past the Anthony's Pier 4 Lobster booth, the newsstands and the souvenir shops. He walked toward Gate 26, where the plane that would be designated Flight 11 had been waiting for him since the night before. It was a Boeing 767, the widebodied workhorse of the American fleet, heavy with more than enough fuel for the 2,611-mile flight.

The Boston Globe November 23, 2001, Friday ,THIRD EDITION

The captain was John Ogonowski, a 52-year-old man from Dracut. His first officer was Thomas McGuinness, 42, of Portsmouth, N.H. Also aboard were nine flight attendants and 81 passengers, for a total of 92 people on the flight manifest when the plane pushed back from Gate 26 at Logan International Airport

The Boston Globe September 12, 2002, Thursday ,THIRD EDITION

Sylvio Amorino, just off a flight yesterday morning, simply stood there in front of Gate 26, Terminal B, Logan Airport. It was 7:55 a.m. The 70-year-old realized that, one year ago, American Airlines Flight 11 had idled here.

the earlier version.

Which gate would usually be used?

I'd guess that 32 was the usual departure gate, therefore a careless presumption while 26 was the actual one.

Now guess who will to try tell us that it did not depart from any gate.

;)

At 7:40 a.m. today, about 200 American Airlines employees gathered at Gate 32 at Logan Airport, the point of departure for Flight 11 exactly one year before. They observed the anniversary with a memorial service for the crew and passengers aboard the hijacked flight, which crashed into the World Trade Center in New York at 8:46.

Thank you, I didn't know this article. So we have 200 witnesses for gate 32 and an unknown number of witnesses for gate 26.

So the AA employees were holding this memorial service at gate 32 while other people were mourning at gate 26? (See Harry's link). Am I right? A little bit odd, isn't it?

So we have 200 witnesses for gate 32 and an unknown number of witnesses for gate 26.

Well according to the article there was one traveler pausing at gate 26. Why do you call any of these people witnesses?

So the AA employees were holding this memorial service at gate 32 while other people were mourning at gate 26? (See Harry's link).

I not sure one traveler pausing at gate 26 constitutes a memorial service.

If I had to guess the AA employees know what gate flt 11 pushed off from. And seeing as both gates are listed in the newspapers within a day of 9/11 I think it's safe to assume we have a standard case of sloppy journalism.

at some point?

If gate 32 had been gate 26 at some previous time (or vise versa) the confusion would then begin to make some sense.

October 23, 2002
Transportation Security Administration Federal Security Director George Naccara has advised Massport that TSA will federalize its ninth checkpoint at Logan International Airport on Thursday, October 24, 2002 when they staff the
Delta Airlines and Continental gates 25-36 in Terminal C.

Other checkpoints federalized over the past several months include:
United gates 11-21,
Delta and Midwest Express gates 40-41 and 42 in Terminal C.
American gates B4 and B5,
America West gates 37-38,
American Eagle gates 22-25 in Terminal B,
AirTran gates 1D, 1E and 1C in Terminal D and
Northwest gates 1A and 1B in Terminal E.
http://www.massport.com/about/press02/press_news_tsa3.html

East/West air dilemma: What’s the Pacific’s contribution to international air travel development? Amazing! Ignoramus! The world’s first codeshare flight was operated by Air Pacific and Qantas in 1980. That bombshell of a morsel was dropped by Air Pacific’s chief executive John Campbell, in a talk about why it’s easy for travellers to fly north-south, or south-north in the Pacific, but a trifle harder to fly east-west or west-east. You’re not quite sure what a codeshare is? Well, every airline’s codesharing nowadays so as to keep in business. It’s when you board an aeroplane brandishing, say an American Airlines ticket and find the plane is run by, say, Air Iraq, and it’s not a hijack.
http://www.pacificislands.cc/pm32003/pmdefault.php?urlarticleid=0026

I have said it before and I will say it again.
ALL the September 11 hijacked flights were CODESHARE.
The three of them that are linked to Qantas,
(which took over Air New Zealand almost immediately after September 11)
smashed into buildings.
The Air Canada codeshare, crashed into a field.


American Airlines Flight 11 Boston (BOS) to Los Angeles (LAX) 92 passengers and crew aboard. Crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center.
United Flight 175, a single aircraft, Boston(BOS) to Los Angeles (LAX) 65 passengers and crew aboard. Crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center. Both buildings subsequently collapsed.
American Airlines, Flight 77, Washington, D.C. (IAD) to Los Angeles (LAX) 64 passengers and crew aboard. Crashed into the Pentagon.
United Airlines, Flight 93 Newark (EWR) to San Francisco (SFO) United Flight 93, a single aircraft, 45 passengers and crew aboard. Crashed near Johnstown, Pennsylvania, 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.

Qantas and Air New Zealand have confirmed that the flights used in the wave of terrorist attacks in the US overnight were involved with code-share arrangements with the local carriers.
Qantas said that it believed six US residents were flying as Qantas codeshare on American Airlines Flight 77 from Washington Dulles to Los Angeles which was deliberately crashed into the US defence headquarters, the Pentagon, just before midnight AEST.
Qantas said, that one of its US-based staff members was travelling on company business aboard American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston to Los Angeles, which crashed into the World Trade Centre (WTC) in New York. No passengers or crew are believed to have survived either crash.
... In a statement released this morning Air NZ said United Airlines flight UA175 from Boston to Los Angeles, which is believed to have crashed into the WTC, was a code-share flight with Air New Zealand operating as NZ9051.
"Initial investigations have revealed that Air New Zealand has no record of any of our ticketed passengers being onboard this flight," the company said.
12 September 2001
http://www.travelbiz.com.au/articles/96/0c007296.asp

More at:
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Quantas-CodeSharing.shtml
http://news.airwise.com/stories/2002/11/1037021360.html

In other news:

American Airlines is proud to offer regional airline service to select North American destinations via its AmericanConnection program. Three independent contractors, Chautauqua Airlines, Corporate Airlines, and Trans States Airlines operate flights under the AmericanConnection brand utilizing modern Regional Jet and Turboprop aircraft.
Customers traveling on AmericanConnection will be offered the same amenities offered to customers traveling on American Airlines. These include the following (where available or applicable):
Electronic Ticketing
Prereserved seats
Self Service Check-In
Curbside Check-In
http://www.aa.com/

Now this all is MOST interesting.
According to records, it appears that American Airlines Flight 77 was not scheduled to fly on September 11, 2001.
Wherdy go?
According to records, it also appears that WITHIN the US, an American Airlines flight might NOT actually BE an American Airlines flight.
According to the good work we have just been made aware of, it appears that passengers for American Airlines Flight 11 boarded ANOTHER plane.

An AA domestic flight might actually be a Chautauqua Airlines flight:

A wholly owned subsidiary of Republic Airways Holdings, Inc., Chautauqua Airlines offers scheduled passenger service on approximately 355 flights daily to 42 cities in 18 states and Canada through codesharing agreements with four major U.S. airlines. All of the airline's flights are operated as either AmericanConnection, America West Express, Delta Connection or US Airways Express. The airline employs more than 1,400 aviation professionals.
http://www.rolls-royce.com/latestnews/showPR.jsp?PR_ID=1284
Republic Airways Holdings, based in Indianapolis, Indiana is an airline holding company owned by investment funds organized and managed by Wexford Capital LLC, a Greenwich, Connecticut-based investment advisor. Republic currently owns two regional airline subsidiaries: Chautauqua Airlines, based in Indianapolis, Indiana and Republic Airlines, based in Louisville, Kentucky.
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0EIN/2003_May_19/101966982/p1/article.jhtml
Republic, which recently learned that American Airlines will remove the AA* code from some of its flights to meet ASM restrictions in its mainline pilot contract, said it plans to use the proceeds to expand operations, buy more airplanes and pay off debt it owes to its only current stockholder, WexAir LLC. Its Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registration statement did not indicate how much of a stake, if any, WexAir plans to retain.
http://www.ainonline.com/issues/04_02/04_02_timeseemsripepg48.html

An AA domestic flight might actually be a Corporate Airlines flight:
http://www.corporateairlines.com/routes.html
http://www.corporateairlines.com/news.html

Mind you there appear to be TWO SEPERATE ENTITIES operating under the nem Corporate Airlines Inc.
In this era of international commerce, global leaders need to fly farther in comfort, be productive en route, and reach business destinations relaxed and refreshed. Corporate Airlines
Incorporated is a company specializing in executive air travel.
CAI WAS FOUNDED IN 2003 by Nick Dufour who is the current President and CEO.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~ndufour/HTML/About.html
According to his resume,
Nick Dufour graduated from Bow High School in 2002
and is currently majoring in Business Administration/ Information Technology at the University of New Hampshire.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~ndufour/HTML/AboutND.html
We are NOT talking about that one.

An AA domestic flight might actually be a Trans States Airlines flight:
http://www.transstates.net/

Air transportation between midwestern and northeastern states is the job of Trans States Airlines. The company offers more than 300 daily flights to nearly 40 cities. In the Midwest it operates as AmericanConnection through an agreement with AMR's American Airlines. Trans States also operates as US Airways Express in the Northeast through an agreement with US Airways. Its fleet consists of 12 regional jets and 33 turboprop aircraft.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/107/107170.html

Trans States Airlines, like most of the regional carriers in the country, utilizes code-sharing agreements. Trans States Airlines code-share agreements are marketing agreements without ownership by major airlines. Trans States has code-share agreements with American Airlines and US Airways.
WITH ITS CODE-SHARE AGREEMENTS, Trans States Airlines IS RECOGNIZED IN MAJOR AIRLINES' COMPUTER RESERVATIONS SYSTEMS AS PART OF THE THE MAJOR AIRLINES' SYSTEM. THIS PERMITS Trans States Airlines TO USE THE MAJOR AIRLINES' RESERVATIONS SYSTEMS AND THE TWO-LETTER CODE OF THE MAJOR AIRLINE THAT IDENTIFIES FLIGHTS AND FARES IN THE WORLDWIDE COMPUTER RESERVATION SYSTEM.
Trans States USES THE MAJOR AIRLINE'S LOGOS, SERVICE MARKS, AIRCRAFT PAINT SCHEMES, AND EMPLOYEE UNIFORMS, and Trans States and the major airlines coordinate flight schedules to make the most convenient connections between the airlines. Trans States also benefits from the major partners' advertising campaigns and frequent flyer programs. Trans States maintains its aircraft, manages most of the airports' stations in each city, and staffs the personnel at its operations.
Code-sharing is advantageous to smaller communities which cannot support service from the major jet carriers. Trans States feeds its passengers to the major airlines by transporting passengers from the "spokes", (smaller communities served by Trans States Airlines) to the major airlines' hub. When flying on Trans States Airlines, passengers receive the benefits offered by the major airlines, for example senior discounts and mileage credits in the major airlines' frequent flyer programs. The benefits accrued can be used on the major airlines or on Trans States Airlines. In addition, passengers receive low through-fares when traveling from the spoke city and connecting to the major airline at the hub city.
http://www.transstates.net/info.htm

When one throws the OneWorld Alliance into the mix, any passenger could have come from anywhere.

APPLICATION by Chautauqua Airlines, Inc. carrying on business as US Airways Express, Trans World Express, TW Express and American Connection (hereinafter Chautauqua) on behalf of itself and AMERICA WEST AIRLINES,INC. for an approval......
http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/rulings-decisions/decisions/2002/A/45-A-2002_e.html

APPLICATION by Chautauqua Airlines, Inc. carrying on business as US Airways Express, Trans World Express, TW Express and American Connection (hereinafter Chautauqua Airlines), on behalf of itself and AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. (hereinafter American Airlines), for an approval .....
http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/rulings-decisions/decisions/2001/A/625-A-2001_e.html

APPLICATION by Chautauqua Airlines, Inc. carrying on business as USAir Express or US Airways Limited (hereinafter Chautauqua), on behalf of itself and TWA AIRLINES LLC (hereinafter TWA), for an approval ....
http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/rulings-decisions/decisions/2001/A/175-A-2001_e.html

APPLICATION by Trans States Airlines, Inc. carrying on business as American Connection and US Airways Express (hereinafter Trans States), on behalf of itself and Chautauqua Airlines, Inc. carrying on business as US Airways Express, American West Express and American Connection (hereinafter Chautauqua), for an approval ....
http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/rulings-decisions/decisions/2002/A/516-A-2002_e.html

Then, on top of all that,
AMR (the parent company of American Airlines)
indulges in something known as REVERSE CODESHARE.
Go figure.

Meanwhile, back at the White House:
GEORGE W. BUSH CONCERNED ABOUT AIRLINE STRIFE
Feb 6, 2001

United States President George W. Bush said today that he is worried about the possibility that strikes could hit the country's four biggest airlines at about the same time in the next few months.
"I am worried about strikes at the airlines. I think that could have a harmful effect on our economy," Mr. Bush said.
"I would urge that the parties settle their disputes. And the President's got some opportunities, some opportunities available, and I will explore all options."
The nation's four biggest carriers - United Airlines, Northwest Airlines, American Airlines and Delta Air Lines - all have contracts expiring with parts of their workforces in the near future.
Northwest mechanics could walk off the job as soon as March and Delta pilots could go on strike in April.
http://news.airwise.com/airlines/archive/2001/american2001.html

I do hope he was speaking of picket line strikes
and not the September 11 kind.

"An AA domestic flight might actually be a Chautauqua Airlines flight"

So what? :spank:

Flight 11 flew to Los Angeles.

Chautauqua Airlines does not fly to California.

http://www.flychautauqua.com/Destinations.asp

An AA domestic flight might actually be a Corporate Airlines flight:

So what? :spank:

Flight 11 flew to Los Angeles.

Corporate Airlines do not fly to California.

http://www.corporateairlines.com/routes.html


An AA domestic flight might actually be a Trans States Airlines flight:

So what? :spank:

Flight 11 flew to Los Angeles.

Trans States do not fly to California.

http://www.transstates.net/route_map.htm

:eyes:


The BTS database shows only two airlines apart from AA to have flown from Boston to LA on 9/11/01, United and Delta.

has taken the trouble to point out that
Chautauqua Airlines does not fly to California.
Corporate Airlines do not fly to California.
Trans States do not fly to California.

RH has also answered a long standing question on this forum.
Flight 11 flew to Los Angeles.
And all this time some of you thought that it parked itself into one of the Twin Towers!!!!
:eyes:

weekdays and weekends.

:eyes:

To the best of my knowledge it had been scheduled to do so every day up until Monday 10/11/01, since Jan 1st 1995, the very first day recorded in the BTS online database.

If then for some peculiar reason it was suddenly not scheduled to do so on September 11th 2001, what then should that peculiar reason be, and why then would nobody have noticed such a remarkably extraordinary peculiarity?

:shrug:

does not neccesarily mean that it ACTUALLY DID SO.

I am certain that there are SCORES of times when that flight - and others were cancelled for many and various reasons.

The BTS site tells whether a flight ACTUALLY DEPARTED, and gives the time of said departure.
You may not hold these statistics in high regard but such information is very useful in determining where a plane may actually be.

What makes this flight more interesting is the fact that it was code-share.
What happened to the passengers from the other airlines who were booked on that flight?

We haven't heard any major squeaking from the other code-share partners and
THEY are the ones who would be liable to be sued
since the tickets were sold by THEM
and had THEIR name
and THEIR flight numbers
and THEIR guarantees.
That US Congress money probably does NOT cover the code-share partners, since they are internationals who are headquartered OUTSIDE the good ole US of A. Besides, we haven't heard of foreign airlines getting US cash handouts - or did I miss that?

A person flying from Dallas to Taipei tonight, for instance,
would depart on American Flight 691 and transfer in San Francisco to
American Flight 6123. At least that's what the ticket would say. But
American Flight 6123, which leaves shortly after midnight, is really China Airlines Flight 3.
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/code.html
See what I mean?
Who do you think the American families would go after if that flight went down?

ALL the September 11 flights were international code-share,
so once again I have to ask,
wherdy go?
Only this time I am referring to the code-share passengers.
And most especially, THE COMPLAINTS from their family members.

Yo Air Canada - Flight AC4085 (UA93) is missing.
Do you care?
Yo Air New Zealand - Flight NZ9051 (UA175) is gone.
What, no tears?
Yo Qantas - you cold-hearted sod!
Does it not bother you TWO of your code-share planes crashed on September 11?
Or that SIX of your ticketed passengers died on AA77
AS WELL AS at least one of your employees?
http://www.travelbiz.com.au/articles/96/0c007296.asp

Not one damn peep out of you!
Too busy dancing on Ansett's grave?
http://www.orientaviation.com/pages/back_issues/01_10/OA_V9N1_airlines_said.html

Thursday, 16 August, 2001
Qantas profits slump
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1493939.stm

Rachel Mealey: While airlines around the world are reeling, Qantas has proven that the demise of its main competitor Ansett was enough to compensate for the aviation downturn since September 11. Declaring a net profit of $428 million, the airline also announced it would fund a fleet upgrade with an $800 million capital raising from existing shareholders. Institutional investors showed their support with $600 million being raised so far.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/busrpt/stories/s660908.htm

At the same time as going on a plane buying spending spree Qantas management are asking staff to take a wage freeze.....
No one can quite understand why Qantas needs a pay cut from us when Qantas is the only airline making a profit and buying planes.
At yesterday’s Annual General Meeting (AGM), Chairman Margaret Jackson said Qantas expects to make the same profit next year as this year, i.e. $597.1 million before tax – some market analysts actually think the profit will be 20% higher than this year!
http://www.asuairlines.asn.au/Q95.htm

Oct 29, 2001
Oneworld alliance partners Qantas and American Airlines are to form a new strategic partnership in which the Australian carrier is to buy up to 75 Boeing 737 aircraft, currently on order for American.
The deal will allow Qantas to increase capacity in its home market and bring some relief to AA, which has experienced severe financial difficulties since the attacks on the World Trade Center last month.
http://news.airwise.com/stories/2001/10/1004355352.html

The lack of capacity required that the airplanes be delivered within an unusually short timeframe. Airbus was marketing airplanes and delivery slots held by United Airlines (UA), which was then in a particularly difficult financial position was not willing to take some of its deliveries. The airplane flown to Australia was in UA colors. Boeing had a large number of 737NGs for which American Airlines (AA), Continental (CO) and Delta (DL) were willing to delay the delivery dates.
http://airtransportbiz.free.fr/Fleets/QF738.html

Fat lot you care about your passengers, Qantas.
Fat lot you care about your employees.
Fat lot you care for ANYTHING from Down Under.

We know that airlines get paid very hefty sums
whenever a ticketholder dies in transit
and we don't need to ask what you did with that money,
but what did you do to make those family members shut up?

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

I wrote "Five of them were positively identified ..."

Then I was going to change it to "All but one of the six of them were positively identified ..." but only half completed the job before clicking off.

And then, I dare say, somebody would seize the opportunity to pop up to accuse me of being a paid disinformation agent.

:nopity:

C'est la vie. So there you have it. Airline flights are indeed often routes shared cooperatively with fellow airlines. The fact is well established, never at all disputed, as far as I can see. There had never at least been any doubt in my mind about it; more than once we've booked cheap tickets with Finnair codes from subsidiary agents only then to end up on British Airways flights with the said tickets.

So please remind us then. Is there supposed to be something especially significant about the fact?

Treat people with respect. Don't be rude or bigoted. Discuss the message, not the messenger.

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

I happen to have a legitimate opinion with regard to a subject in question.

If you do not then wish to know it then let that be your loss.

right.

Please don't deny THAT!
:pals:

from the other airlines who were booked...?

The same, of course, as happened to the passengers booked to fly with American Airlines.

Any more stupid distractions to waste our precious time on?

you never know what you're gonna get.

All the planes that were involved in September 11 were US DOMESTIC flights (despite their code-share affiliations)
and were
owned
operated
managed
staffed
and took off from US airports
with US air control
and the FAA
and NORAD
and the US military
and the US intelligence watching the whole thing.

BUT
FOREIGN airlines
have had their insurance rates raised
as a direct result of September 11
and FOREIGN airlines are now required to pay hefty premiums
to US-based insurance companies
and FOREIGN airlines are being pressured to carry armed guards on their flights INTO the nation that had the security breach in the first place.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/airlines/story/0,1371,1117509,00.html

Qantas said before the attacks in the US it was indemnified under its Aviation Liability Policy in respect of war risks for a limit of $US2 billion for any one event.
Aviation insurance underwriters have now issued a seven day Notice of Cancellation of war risks insurance cover to all airlines, effective September 25, 2001 and applying to all international carriers.
"Insurers may provide limited war risk cover to airlines which they consider to be a good risk," Qantas said in a statement.
"Qantas will fall into this category."
Qantas said that this new cover will be restricted to liability for death and injury to passengers on the aircraft limited to $US2 billion per occurrence; and death or injury to third parties and property damage on the ground limited to $US50 million for any one event or in aggregate.
It said a $US1.25 surcharge per passenger per flight will be imposed by the insurers for this cover."This amount will be added to the ticket price as a separate charge," Qantas said.
20 September 2001
http://www.travelbiz.com.au/articles/91/0c007591.asp
Qantas lost SIX ticketed passengers
aboard TWO US-based code-share planes
and yet remains a top notch insurance risk.
However, it does rather appear as if
the code-share relationships of
Qantas and Air Canada
have been noted.

THE United States order for international airlines to have armed police onboard amid growing fears of an al-Qaeda hijack was not directed at Australia, federal Justice Minister Chris Ellison said today.
<snip>
The Government is also considering flying sky marshals to Canada although Qantas had no direct flights between the two countries.
Senator Ellison said he was sympathetic to THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST FOR ARMED GUARDSON FLIGHTS and would treat it with urgency.
http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,8286316%255E1702,00.html
Tue 6 Jan 2004
Qantas to comply with sky marshal order
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/Business/story_54217.asp

Stupid is as stupid does.

Consideration of the total airline insurance premium (of about US$1,785 million gross in 1995 excluding war risks) shows that the relatively modest premium covers enormous exposures, such as nearly US$400 billion of aircraft hull values and the liability exposures from the carriage of passengers. Both can produce huge accumulations. With a per passenger fatality liability cost of US$3 million and hull values of up to US$150 million per wide-body, a single major event could cost several billion or many times the WORLDWIDE annual premium.
http://airlinesgate.free.fr/articles/insurance.htm
41% of the WORLDWIDE fleet of aircraft is located in the USA.

BUT WAIT - THERE'S MORE

In a wire story circulated by the Agence French-Presse (AFP), an insurance expert revealed that companies had slashed by half their estimate of potential payouts to the families of those who perished aboard the flight en route to the Dominican Republic.
"It's horrible to say, but there were many Dominicans on board the plane and their compensation payouts are less than, say, for an American," said the insider who insisted on anonymity.
The change came after learning that more than 90 percent of the passengers -- including five unticketed infants traveling on their parents' laps -- were Dominican nationals or of Dominican descent. "We estimated a payout yesterday (the day of the crash) of about a billion dollars but we lowered our evaluation today (the day after) to about 500 million dollars," the insurance-industry insider explained from Paris. Calculations are based on a number of factors, including the victim's income and family situation.
<snip>
"Traditionally, airlines receive $2.7 million per passenger from their insurance companies within 10 days of a crash," the president of the National Air Disaster Alliance, Gail A. Dunham, told insure.com. American Airlines should hand that money over to the families.
An American Airlines spokesman offered words of comfort to the hundreds of people who gathered Sunday night at a Washington Heights church for a memorial service for many of the victims who lived in my neighborhood. He told those present, "We love you. We love your people. AND NOW MORE THAN EVER WE WILL SERVE YOU."
http://www.progressive.org/pmp0701/pmpln2001.html
More bang for the buck?

Qantas today confirmed the deaths of two Qantas staff members in Tuesday's tragic hijackings in the United States of America.
Laura Lee Morabito, Qantas Area Sales Manager in Boston, was killed in the crash of American Airlines Flight 11, while travelling on company business. Laura, 34, was an American citizen. She joined Qantas in 1988. She lived in Framingham, Massachusetts, with her husband.
Alberto Dominguez, 66, from Lidcombe in Sydney, joined Qantas in 1991 and was a baggage handler at Sydney Domestic Terminal. He was killed while travelling on holiday aboard American Airlines Flight 11. He was married with four children.
http://www.qantas.com.au/regions/dyn/au/publicaffairs/details?ArticleID=2001/sep01/2480
Wonder how much they were worth.....

Drill Sergeant: Gump! What's your sole purpose in this army?
Forrest Gump: To do whatever you tell me, drill sergeant!
Drill Sergeant: God damn it, Gump! You're a god damn genius! This is the most outstanding answer I have ever heard. You must have a goddamn I.Q. of 160. You are goddamn gifted, Private Gump.

Would that DulceDecorum were so......

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

...you should hit alert and let the moderators know about it.

I personally don't see anything offensive about RH's post. He's discussing the message (Stupid Distractions) and not the messenger. I believe that you honestly believe all the things you promote here, and if I believed them, I would share your sense of outrage over the suspected perps. However, my outrage is based on the facts and is directed at the real perps - Al Qaeda. Your postings, while well intentioned, are misleading and filled with errors, and must be corrected. This is why you must not be ignored, Dulce. We wouldn't want the disinterested bystander or the Republican agitproper to conclude that all of DU believed the things you post here, simply because your postings went unchallenged.

DU is an open forum, filled with many intellectually honest members (including you and I). The nature of discussion is passionate disagreement, with evidence and facts presented by both sides, and the thoughtful readers deciding for themselves who is correct and who continues to require correction. This attempt to escape the watchful eye of constructive criticism is another misguided element of your messages here, Dulce. :(

So: what's the point about the codesharing, Dulce? Why do you feel this is relevent to a discussion of 9/11? This is something that I've yet to divine from the mass of information that you've cobbled together. Why is codesharing important?

when you put it like that?
That entire post is dedicated to your opinion of DulceDecorum.

Boloboffin says:
Your postings, while well intentioned, are misleading and filled with errors, and must be corrected. This is why you must not be ignored, Dulce. ....
This attempt to escape the watchful eye of constructive criticism is another misguided element of your messages here, Dulce. :(

Incidentally Boloboffin,
I do not recall seeing any "correction" of ANY of the FACTS that I have presented here. It appears to me that you are trying to correct my viewpoint.
The DU Rules address this type of behavior.

Unfortunately, it has become all too common for members of this message board to label anyone with a slightly different point of view as a disruptor. We disapprove of this behavior because its intent is to stifle discussion, enforce a particular "party line," and pre-emptively label a particular point of view as inappropriate or unwelcome. This makes thoughtful and open debate virtually impossible.

And since WHEN
do WE of the Democratic Underground
care one fig
for what a "Republican agitproper" may think of us?

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

is supposed to be about passengers getting onto a plane at Boston.

Why are you discussing the merits and demerits of DulceDecorum?

Furthermore, how did candidates get into this discussion?
I thought that the General Discussion 2004 Forum was dedicated to topics of that nature.
This IS the 9:11 Forum, isn't it?

Lets get back to talking about passengers and planes.

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

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

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

AA Flight 11 usually departed from Gate 26, but for whatever reason the gate was switched to 32 that day.

These two assumptions (regular gate, innocent switch) account for every anomaly reported in the press. A frequent traveller would assume Flight 11 left from Gate 26, and press reports could have confused the information in the chaos of the day.

However, the ATC radio transcript and the scheduled memorial service show that AA Flight 11 departed from Gate 32 on September 11.

Is there a conclusion you're driving at by your random speculations on this, woody b?

This is Terminal B, American Airlines

The five gates on the lower margin are gates 22-26.
The two planes on the right margin (lower center) are waiting in front of gates 31 and 32.




So where was the action, what do you think from the data presented in this thread (including your own knowledge and intuition): 26 or 32? Or both?

And I would like you to differentiate between Airplane (A) and Passengers (P).

LARED and boloboffin already have voted: 26 -- / 32 AP,

i.e. no plane, no passengers at gate 26
plane and passengers at gate 32.

I'm still not sure if I should take 26 AP / 32 AP or 26 AP / 32 A.

I don't know if there was a plane or passengers at 26. A held over flight might be the explanation for 11 boarding at 32.

On a side note, it might be interesting to develop a 9/11 code, similar to the geek code. Anybody got time to do that? Dulce?

Very wierdly, I took AA 175 in early August of 2001.....

Anyway, I was looking for a map of the gate locations, because if 26 is at the end of the terminal, that's usually where the connectors park.....you usually walk into the terminal from these connectors.

But here's something I found while trying to locate a gate map of terminal B on a site that isn't the official Logan site:

http://www.boston-bos.com/terminals.html


"Terminal B

Logan Airport Terminal B serves America West, American, American Eagle, American Trans Air, Business Express, Metro Jet, Midway, Qantas, US Airways, US Airways Shuttle and US Airways Express. It contains gates 1 to 27. "


......so where's 32?

I'll be willing to bet the "push back" statement by the controller wasn't meant for AA11, but I'd have to actually hear the tape to know (you'd be surprised what somebody who doesn't know air traffic control can mess up in a transcript. Hell, I've seen FAA quality assurance specialists mess it up).

Anybody know if there's a voice version anywhere online (it's not common for the FAA to release tapes, so it's doubtful).

///I'll be willing to bet the "push back" statement by the controller wasn't meant for AA11///

But the controller is talking with "AA 11" the whole time !?

The transcript picked out one specific dialogue...between ground and AAL11 to print. In reality, there were scores of other clearances being given to scores of other airplanes within a few minutes of those transmissions. Imagine if you were a celebrity surrounded by reporters shouting questions and you were trying their questions all very quickly. You're essentially carrying on a dialog with 20 or 30 people at once. A reporter might write the following "When asked what he was planning for the weekend, he said he had always looked up to his father." Doesn't make much sense, unless you understand that there were a lot of conversations going on at once and the reporter probably attributed the response to the wrong wuestion. Things can get confusing if you don't know what to listen for.

Another possibility is that the controller DID say "Gate 32" in error, but when AAL11 replied, he realized that AAL11 had understood what he meant and let it go at that.

that the plane leaving gate 32 at 7:45 is not identical to the plane taking off at 7:59? (I'm still not sure I get you right).

at all. Without hearing the tape (and possibly not even then) I couldn't be sure that the transcript is accurate. I've seen many instances when a transmission was attributed to the wrong pilot or where the transcriber's interpretation of the situation caused errors.

Then again, it could have been that the controller misspoke and when the correct plane answered anyway, he didn't see the need to clarify the error. I'd actually like to go into this a bit further to make it clearer. If a busy controller said "AAL11, wait for the United to go by and then you're cleared to push pack from Gate 32", and AAL11 answered "Roger, we'll push back after the United.", I probably wouldn't take the time to say "AAL11, roger...you're at Gate 26. Push back from Gate 26 after the United.". The correct plane answered and he couldn't POSSIBLY push back from Gate 32, so everything's O.K.

I believe they've dove some expansion at Logan, too. Though renumbering gates doesn't seem likely, the poster who asked might be right.

And it is run by AA, check out AA website and map of Logan Airport with their gates, they operate gates 22-36 on Terminal B. see link

AA Terminal MAP

There doesn't seem to be any screw up in the transcript, they keep referring to a Sabena plane that AA11 has to wait for, so the push back where they mention gate 32 is not unusual at all. It is much much more likely that they would have to wait for a Sabena plane before push back at gate 32 than at gate 26. Sabena Departs from Terminal C (all international arrivals are at Terminal E), if you look at the map again, gate 32 can see Terminal C, and could tell when the Sabena flight pushed back, but gate 26 would be unable to see any push backs at Terminal C.

Here the relevant part of the transcript


7:45:48 -- Ground Control 1: American eleven heavy boston ground gate thirty two you're going to wait for a Saab to go by then push back.

7:45:58 -- AAL11: After the Saab cleared to push, and we're gonna need four right today, American eleven heavy.

7:46:09 -- Ground Control 1: American eleven heavy uh understand you need alpha roger. Push back after the Saab is approved.

7:46:15 -- AAL11: O.K. Yeah what I said was we're going to need runway four right today, American eleven heavy.

7:46:21 -- Ground Control 1: American eleven heavy. Roger plan on runway four right.

7:49:20 -- AAL11: American eleven, heavy taxi november.

7:49:23 -- Ground Control 1: O.K. American eleven heavy, just hold right there i'll move you shortly.

7:50:00 -- Ground Control 1: American eleven heavy, you're going to give way to the Dornier and the regional jet on the opposite side. Taxi to the bravo hold point via kilo bravo. Expect runway four right for departure.

.

How is that phrase used by ATC's?

Does it have different meaning depending on different circumstances?

"push back" just means "push back" (as in back away from the gate).

> 35. I'm an enroute controller, not a tower controller, but I believe that

hm ... isn't airfield traffic controlled by ground, not the Tower ?

Ok, if you are an enrout controller I have one or 2 questions.

First of all: Which dector do you control ? Upper/Lower airspace ? As an enroute controller I suspect you to control above Airspace Bravo, right ?

Can you tell me exactly what types of radar system is normally used for enroute controlling in the US .... I mean which manufacturers, which kind of technology ... etc.

We basically have three groups: Tower, Enroute and Flight Service. Yes, taxiing aircraft at bigger airports are worked by ground control (which falls under the general heading of "tower").

We just resectorized Cleveland Center:

http://www.faa.gov/ATS/aglzob/zobartcc.htm

I used to work in Area 5 (south and east of Pittsburg), but now work in Area 8 (sooth of Detroit to west of Pittsburg). Of the seven sectors in Area 8, six are low altitude (from the ground to 23,000') and one is a high-altitude sector (from 24,000' to 29,000'). We also have "superhigh" sectors and "ultrahigh" sectors", but not in Area 8.

Enroute facilities use a radar mosaic system. The data from multiple radar sites is interpreted by a computer which displays the information that it THINKS is correct. It's not raw radar data...it's an extrapolation.

Terminal facilities (towers) use a single radar site, thus the "sweep" of the radar on their displays. Single-site data is more accurate, so their separation standards are lower than ours (they can legally get planes closer to each other than we can).

///Sabena Departs from Terminal C (all international arrivals are at Terminal E), if you look at the map again, gate 32 can see Terminal C, and could tell when the Sabena flight pushed back, but gate 26 would be unable to see any push backs at Terminal C.///

This is the kind of information we should look for.

I'm just curious...

Your adversion to conclusions is becoming downright Dulcian.

boloboffin: "Is there a conclusion you're driving at by your random speculations on this, woody b?"
*****************

I'm assuming woodyb does not have one. ... We should not form a conclusion and then find evidence that helps "drive" that conclusion home. Rather, we should explore every bit of evidence that we can find (whether the changing gate numbers counts as evidence of something or nothing, I don't know) and see where that takes us, regardless of whether it fits some ideas we had at the beginning of the search.

Also, I think that if the gate had been changed on the morning of 9/11, it would likely have been reported in the papers the next day and week (i.e., both gates being mentioned) as having changed at the last minute. That would play into the randomness/fate angle. But as far as I can tell from the sources quoted above, the gate was not changed that morning.

I'd be happy if woodyb presented us with the working hypothesis that occasioned his sharing of this random information with us.

Perhaps the two gate problem was never resolved in the print media because no one ever concieved of it being a problem. You know, with all the dead American citizens and the buildings on fire and all...

I'd like that too -- something on the order of "I wonder if this means ..."

There were tons of little details reported amid the news of dead people and falling buildings ... Changing gates at the last minute certainly qualifies as one of them.

Of course, the media has offered several versions of dozens and dozens of 9/11 angels and oddities. The issue of these two gates would be waaaaay down the list of questions I would have, though, in my view. Unless something else is brought forth.

"The issue of these two gates would be waaaaay down the list of questions I would have"

Such as ___________? The good thing about asking questions here is that you can get responses that might come from the H&K/Rendon crowd as well as from people who don't have an agenda to promote a predetermined point of view.

do you think this passenger would use?

A person flying from Dallas to Taipei tonight, for instance,
would depart on American Flight 691 and transfer in San Francisco to
American Flight 6123. At least that's what the ticket would say. But
American Flight 6123, which leaves shortly after midnight, is really China Airlines Flight 3.
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/code.html

My money says that he would NOT leave out of the American Airlines gate.
My money says that he would leave out of the China Airlines gate.

However,
in very many instances,
the code-share partners SHARE gates.
Why you ask?

Exclusive gates allowed some major airlines to dominate an airport and keep potential rivals at bay. At Denver's new airport, for instance, its largest user, United Airlines, controls an entire concourse.
Even when United cut back flights after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, rival airlines were unable to use United's underused gates because the airline had exclusive control of them.
Control of gate availability meant United to a certain extent could control the entry of rivals into the Denver market.
http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/msg26046.html

If you do not own your own gate at a US airport,
then you had bloody better get yourself into a a code-share agreement with someone who does.
Otherwise you will be in the interesting position of being allowed to land at an airport, but not being allowed to have your passengers move on or off the plane.

...Today in the USA the airports are controlled by airlines. Each airline "owns" a bank of gates that they control. In the future the airport will own the gates and parcel them out to airlines as needed.
I expect that many of you have arrived at an airport and heard the captain say, "The good news is that we are on time, but the bad news is that there are no gates for us. We have to wait until a plane in front of us is pushed back before we can open the doors and get you into the airport."
As you look out the window, you may notice that there are dozens of open gates. Ah ha! But not for your airline. Those open gates are controlled by a competing airline. You have to wait and look plaintively at empty Jetways.
The airlines love this system. They get more control. Travelers, unfortunately, get more delays. In many European airports the gates are controlled by the airport. When an airplane lands, airport controllers direct the plane to any open gate.
http://www.ticked.com/cheapcharlie/2000/chairport.htm

Quite simply, Logan is at a critical crossroads. It is now ranked as the 6th most delay-prone airport in the U.S. Meanwhile, Boston increases in popularity as a tourist and meeting destination and international trade dictates the need for more and better airline service to global destinations.
http://www.massport.com/planning/logan.html

According to Massport Northwest Airlines controls six gates at Logan Airport in Boston and has 30 departures or arrivals each day.
Just down the walkway, AirTran has only one gate and with 20 arrivals or departures each day. Boston would have more low-cost flights if AirTran could get additional gates.
http://www.ticked.com/leocha/2003/code.htm

According to the transcript, there was a push back.
Now we need to
properly identify the owner of the gates in question
and check into their code-share partners
AND ALSO check
ALL OTHER code-share alliances of ALL said partners.

Oh, the tangled webs we weave.
When we practice to deceive.
-- Sir Walter Scott

One factor that will help narrow down the field is this:
almost all of the code-share partners of United or American
did NOT sell
ANY tickets to ANY passengers on ANY of the September 11 flights.
And there are MANY such code-share partners.

It makes you wonder
WHO was ACTUALLY on those flights
and HOW they got their tickets.
http://members.aol.com/mpwright9/sting.html

According to the transcript, there was a push back.
Now we need to
properly identify the owner of the gates in question
and check into their code-share partners
AND ALSO check
ALL OTHER code-share alliances of ALL said partners.

Why?

...I mean, have at it. I nominate you to do this. Go, Dulce, go.

One factor that will help narrow down the field is this:
almost all of the code-share partners of United or American
did NOT sell
ANY tickets to ANY passengers on ANY of the September 11 flights.
And there are MANY such code-share partners.

Two words that Dulce didn't capitalize: ALMOST ALL. That would mean that some code-share partners DID sell SOME tickets to SOME passengers on SOME of the September 11 flights. But then that sentence would have looked far less sinister.

Still waiting to see the relevance of the codeshare angle, and how cancelled insurance figures into it all. If there's no conclusion, could we at least have a working hypothesis, Dulce? Thanks ever so...

Boloboffin,
you already have all the answers you need or want.
How about leaving the rest of us alone,
while we find our way to the answers we need and want?

We are after the truth.
You already have it.
Just think of all the glee you will experience when you finally get to say
"I told you so."

Stop bothering your brain with this code-share stuff.
To you, it is irrelevant.

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

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

remember a lot about the layout. All I know is it is one lousy layout for getting into and out of Logan. :-)

Spiegel-Buch zum 11. September, p. 44

"masterpiece of investigative journalism"

(Translation from German)

////Boston, 11. September, 7:30

The passengers are scraping their feet at gate 26, 81 people, carrying bags and newspapers. They are making phone calls, rustling with newspapers and drink their "Latte Decaf Fat-Free".///


So the gate 26 hypothesis gets a good kick, I think. Obviously some Spiegel reporters have been in Boston and interviewed eyewitnesses.

is the truth, after all, it is Germany's leading investigative magazine.

(/sarcasm)

However, what they really do is talking to witnesses and checking facts that do not seem too important to them, so I think this info could be true.

http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=%22Flight+11%22++Gate+26&q2=%22Flight+11%22++Gate+32&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us

http://www.googlefight.com/

http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=DulceDecorum+&q2=LARED&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us

http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=true&q2=false&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us

Beats a ouija board every time, this does.

http://google-fight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=Mossad&q2=Illuminati&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us

belong in the lounge.
We are trying to determine which gate the supposed passengers allegedly boarded their missing flight.
Cease and desist with the disruptions.

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

Have a look at these two articles.

October 23, 2002
Transportation Security Administration Federal Security Director George Naccara has advised Massport that TSA will federalize its ninth checkpoint at Logan International Airport on Thursday, October 24, 2002 when they staff the
Delta Airlines and Continental gates 25-36 in Terminal C.

Other checkpoints federalized over the past several months include:
United gates 11-21,
Delta and Midwest Express gates 40-41 and 42 in Terminal C.
American gates B4 and B5,
America West gates 37-38,
American Eagle gates 22-25 in Terminal B,
AirTran gates 1D, 1E and 1C in Terminal D and
Northwest gates 1A and 1B in Terminal E.
http://www.massport.com/about/press02/press_news_tsa3.html

Terminal A
Terminal A is currently closed for renovation
Terminal B
Logan Airport Terminal B serves America West, American, American Eagle, American Trans Air, Business Express, Metro Jet, Midway, Qantas, US Airways, US Airways Shuttle and US Airways Express. It contains gates 1 to 27.
Terminal C
Logan Airport Terminal C serves Air France (departures only), Comair, Delta Airlines, Delta Express, Sabena (departures only), Swissair, TWA, TW Connection, United and United Express. It contains gates 11 to 41.
Terminal D
Logan Airport Terminal D serves Air Tran, Alitalia (departures only) and charter flights. Terminal E
Logan Airport Terminal E serves Aer Lingus, Air Canada, Air France (international arrivals), Air Nova, Alitalia (international arrivals), American (international arrivals), British Airways, Icelandair, KLM, Korean Air, Lufthansa, Northwest, Olympic, Sabena, Sun Country, Swissair (international arrivals), TAP Air Portugal and Virgin Atlantic. It contains gates 1 to 8.
http://www.boston-bos.com/terminals.html

Where would we find a Gate # 26?
Terminal B (American Eagle)
AND
Terminal C (Delta & Continental)

Where would we find a Gate # 32?
Terminal C (Delta & Continental)

Here is a map.
http://www.massport.com/logan/insid.html
Correct me if I am wrong.

According to one version there would appear to only 26 gates in terminal B while according to another version there would appear to be 38.

That is why, at an earlier stage I suggested there may have been a redesignation.

In the mean time, according to http://www.massport.com/logan/insid.html there would appear to be a gate 26 and a gate 32, both at Terminal B, pier A.

So....?

Because of what is Terminal C significant?

Suppose for a moment that N334AA, the aircraft that took off for Los Angeles as American Airlines Flight 11 had flown into Boston from somewhere else, thereby arriving at gate 32, the usual position for that particular route.

If gate 26 was the usual departure gate for the other destination, the route to LA, would it not then make sense for a switch to be made, to use gate 32 as the departure gate on this particular occassion?

Do the facts fit?

The facts do not fit.

THE AMERICAN FLIGHT LEFT FROM GATE 26 IN TERMINAL B, AND THE UNITED FLIGHT LEFT FROM GATE 19 IN TERMINAL C. One airport employee said nothing unusual was apparent when the American flight left, and airline workers learned almost simultaneously that there had been explosions at the World Trade Center and that air traffic control had lost contact with the American flight.
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/globe_stories/0912/
Crashes_in_NYC_had_grim_origins_at_Logan+.shtml

John Ogonowski parked his pickup truck in the employee parking lot at Logan and made the familiar stroll through Terminal B, past the Anthony's Pier 4 Lobster booth, the newsstands and the souvenir shops. HE WALKED TOWARD GATE 26, WHERE THE PLANE THAT WOULD BE DESIGNATED FLIGHT 11 HAD BEEN WAITING FOR HIM SINCE THE NGHT BEFORE. It was a Boeing 767, the widebodied workhorse of the American fleet, heavy with more than enough fuel for the 2,611-mile flight.
It was a typical late-summer morning in the terminal, filled with business travelers and families, cleaning crews and airline personnel. Two workers were missing from the security checkpoint; one had called in sick, and the other's absence was unexplained. This slowed movement through the metal detectors and X-ray machines. But that wasn't particularly unusual.
<snip>
One of the last people to board was Atta, whose flight from Maine was indeed delayed. He narrowly made it, but two of his bags didn't. When they were opened later in the day, investigators found instructional videotapes for flying large aircraft, a fuel consumption calculator, a knife, some kind of flight plan or log, and a copy of the Koran.
Atta settled into seat 8D, in Business Class, alongside a fellow plotter, Abdulrahman Alomari, and across the aisle from a Hollywood producer, David Angell and his wife, Lynn.
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/globe_stories/0916/
Reliving_the_morning_of_death+.shtml

An airport security employee said that one person in charge of screening passengers entering the United flight saw ''an Arab guy looking suspicious'' but did not report it because a colleague told her she was mistaken.
The employee, who asked not to be identified, said THE MAN INSPECTED THE X-RAY MACHINE AND THE WALLS AND CEILINGS AROUND THE ENTRY POINT TO GATES 11 THROUGH 21 IN TERMINAL C.
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/globe_stories/0913/
Profiling_tactic_apparently_failed+.shtml

BOSTON (AP) — Federal authorities are investigating whether a man who toured the tower at Logan International Airport three days before Tuesday's terrorists attacks was one of the hijackers, the FAA confirmed Sunday.
The man, who showed a pilot's license and said he had family in Afghanistan, entered the tower unescorted, several hours after four men who appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent asked a controller how to gain access to the tower, The Boston Globe reported.
<snip>
Foreign nationals usually need permission from an FAA regional office before being allowed into the tower, the controller told The Associated Press. The controller said he had not seen anyone matching the description of the hijackers in the tower.
http://www.portland.com/news/attack/010917tower.shtml

On other occasions, some of the hijackers were seen videotaping crews on their flights. Other times, they asked for cockpit tours.
Two also rode in the cockpit of the planes of one national airline, said a pilot who requested anonymity. The practice, known as "jumpseating," allows certified airline pilots to use a spare seat in the cockpit when none is available in the passenger cabin. Airlines reciprocate to help pilots get home or to the city of their originating flight.
FBI and Justice Department officials have told the Globe they do not believe any of the hijackers were jumpseating on Sept. 11, but in the aftermath of the attack, the Federal Aviation Administration banned the practice unless a pilot works for the airline in whose cockpit he wants to ride.
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/news/
planes_reconstruction.htm

Hmmmm
Were those other pilots "code-share pilots"
or WHAT THE HECK HAS BEEN GOING ON?

The Herald is reporting that among the suspects are two brothers, one of whom was a trained pilot, whose passports were traced to the United Arab Emirates. At least two other suspects are believed to have arrived at Logan from Portland, Maine. AUTHORITIES BELIEVE THE SUSPECTS CROSSED OVER FROM CANADA ON TUESDAY MORNING.
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/956258/detail.html

An airport security employee said that one person in charge of screening passengers entering the United flight saw ''an Arab guy looking suspicious'' but did not report it because a colleague told her she was mistaken.
The employee, who asked not to be identified, said THE MAN INSPECTED THE X-RAY MACHINE AND THE WALLS AND CEILINGS AROUND THE ENTRY POINT TO GATES 11 THROUGH 21 IN TERMINAL C.
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/globe_stories/0913/
Profiling_tactic_apparently_failed+.shtml

Note: Due to the lack of a US Customs and Immigration facility in Halifax, customers arriving on direct flights from Halifax to Boston will be bused from Terminal C to Terminal E for customs clearance and baggage pick-up.
http://www.aircanada.ca/services/arrivalinfo/
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_International_Airport

I felt sick to my stomach. It would be more than an hour before we received word that the flight had landed safely in Cleveland. But that was little comfort, because we knew by then that American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston to Los Angeles had been hijacked and rammed into the first WTC tower. A flight attendant, Madeline Amy Sweeney, had called the airline's control center at Logan and described the horrifying scene unfolding at the front of the plane. For the first time, I heard about box cutters, the weapon that would start a war.
While we were trying to grasp the coldblooded murder of 92 passengers and crew on Flight 11, the changing story of United Airlines Flight 175, another LA-bound flight out of Boston, unfolded. At first we were told that it was the second plane involved in the New York attacks. Then we were told that an American Airlines plane out of Washington's Dulles International Airport had crashed into the trade center tower, and United 175 was safely on the ground. I winced at the effect this uncertainty must be having on passengers' families. Meanwhile, I passed the contradictory information on to the governor's office and the mayor's office.
<snip>
The next night, (September 19,2001) we experienced another surreal moment: the bin Laden family airlift. My staff was told that a private jet was arriving at Logan from Saudi Arabia to pick up 14 members of Osama bin Laden's family living in the Boston area. "Does the FBI know?" staffers wondered. "Does the State Department know? Why are they letting these people go? Have they questioned them?" This was ridiculous. But our power to stop their arrival or departure was limited. Under federal law, an airport operator is not allowed to restrict the movement of an individual flight or a class of aircraft without going through a byzantine regulatory process that had, to date, never succeeded. So bravado would have to do in the place of true authority. Kinton said: "Tell the tower that plane is not coming in here until somebody in Washington tells us it's OK." He then repeatedly called the FBI and the State Department throughout the night. Each time the answer was the same: "Let them leave." On September 19, under the cover of darkness, they did.
As each day brought more news accounts of security checkpoint problems, the media frenzy built. We spent a lot of time trying to separate fact from rumor. It was widely reported that a Logan ramp pass had been found in one of the terrorists' cars. A Chicago newspaper said another hijacking out of Logan was thwarted, CITING A FLIGHT NUMBER THAT DIDN'T EXIST. Yet another story reported locally said that a pilot "described as Middle Eastern" had been given a tour of the Logan tower just days before the hijackings. The first two stories turned out to be baseless, the other misinterpreted, but the perception of an airport out of control was growing.
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/
globe_stories/090802_buckingham_entire.htm (page 5)

Now,
RH has asked:
If gate 26 was the usual departure gate for the other destination, the route to LA, would it not then make sense for a switch to be made, to use gate 32 as the departure gate on this particular occassion?

NO WAY.
That would mean that
American Airlines REFUSED TO USE ITS OWN GATE FOR ITS OWN PLANE.
THE AMERICAN FLIGHT LEFT FROM GATE 26 IN TERMINAL B
Look at the map:
http://www.massport.com/logan/insid_termi_b.html
American (except int’l arrivals) is based in Terminal B,
except for
American Airlines International Arrivals
which are ALL in Terminal E
together with US Immigration.

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

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

Furthermore, the gate that it pulls up to has to belong either to itself, or to one of it's code-share partners - who has agreed to make said gate available to said airline and said flight at said time.
A commerical plane - in the USA - CANNOT just switch gates any old time it wants to.
In addition to this, federal employees will not allow a plane
- and they ALL must file flight plans prior to take-off -
to leave unless and until they have determined that it can land without issue. And the US airport is NOT aboout to breach their agreements with the airlines just to accomodate some gate-hopping pilot.

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

Therefore
RH, old boy,
within the United States,
it is VERY difficult to see a case in which a plane would be able to simply just wander up to the nearest gate and let passengers get on or off at will.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is why code-share is so very important.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How did Abdulaziz Alomari get checked in BEFORE Atta?
Do tell.

Sorry, I have a hard time following you on this, but that last bit about Atta showing up by himself, is real interesting. There were 2 flying in from Portland, both were on 11, right? Maybe the other guy was a sprinter and got there ahead of Atta, but that's not the way the narrative reads.

Maybe Atta stopped to take a whiz

Atta dropped off Alomari at the terminal and then had to go to park the car.

They both flew in from Portland on a connector. Why would Atta be parking a car? And it sounds like the connector flight was tight so why would Atta take a chance on missing his date with destiny?

Another strange thing. Most of the hotels in the area have shuttle service to Logan....why would they go through the efforts of driving their cars into Logan? Not sure where the other hi-jackers stayed on 9/10, but Logan is a god awful nightmare for anyone who is only an occaisional flyer to drive into.

The whiz story might be the reason why Atta was alone, but that only puts him a couple of minutes behind his companions. Maybe it was a dump, though.

was discovered in the Boston Airport Car Park.

The connection from Portland had arrived at 6:50am c.f. Paul Thompson Timeline.

There should thus have been no hurry. Colgan appear to also use Terminal B and there is in any case a free shuttle bus service between all terminals:

http://www.colganair.com/routes.htm#boston

So what took place during the spare half hour? I'd guess they'd all need to rendezvous somehere without attracting attention.

"At about 7.15 a white Mitsubishi saloon pulled up abruptly in the airport car park. It carried three young Arab men. In one window a 'ramp pass' allowing access to restricted areas at the airport was displayed...."
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,552749,00.html

The Mitsubishi's occupants, with an aggressive attitude, argued over a parking space.

"when the motorist heard about the hijacking he called state police, on a hunch, and led them to the car, hired from Alamo."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,552789,00.html

"only an occaisional flyer" does not apply. The same Mitsubishi had been seen in the vicinity on several occasions during the previous few days.

Seth MacFarlane missed the flight because his travel agent wrote down 8:15 a.m. as the departure time.
The flight left at 7:45 a.m. He arrived at the ticket counter at Boston’s Logan International Airport with about 10 minutes to spare, well under the mandatory 15-minute check-in time. He was told that he would have to rebook. Sorry, you’re too late, the airline employees said. The plane will leave without you. You've cut it too close to departure.
And that was a security measure.
http://zephyr.unr.edu/spring02/community/archives/com_riddle_lucky.html

The suspected ringleader of last week's terrorist assault came close to missing his American Airlines flight out of Boston and showed up at the gate perspiring, says an American Airlines employee at Logan International Airport.
The gate agent who checked in Mohamed Atta and gave him his boarding pass told the FBI that she remembers him showing up for Flight 11 late, his face covered with sweat, the source says.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24596

Seth MacFarlane works for Fox.
The second article was written by Paul Sperry of Worldnet Daily.

An American (Airlines) spokeswoman in Dallas would not comment on the developments, stressing that ALL American (Airlines)
EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN ORDERED NOT TO TALK TO THE PRESS.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24596
Sperry must have been hanging around when Atta made that leak....

I assume that accounts for the different ways they were handled.

http://www.aa.com/content/aboutAA/whereWeFly/terminals/terminal_BOS.jhtml;jsessionid=SLQALARSR4RVFEAJJM3SNAEQBFFT4LTT

Unless, of course, you are of the opinion that Seth Macfalane and Mohammed Atta were both trying to board the same plane at TWO DIFFERENT GATES.
And why didn't Seth MacFarlane simply use the self-service or curbside check in?

Foidermore,
if Seth MacFarland did NOT see Atta,
then that means that Atta got there BEFORE him in which case Atta was NOT running late.

If Atta arrived AFTER Seth MacFarlane,
then why didn't Atta get sent back or MacFarlane complain bitterly about someone else being given preferrential treatment?

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

What happened to Atta at the baggage check-in:

He had just run from the US Airways terminal to here. He tried to check a bag. The clerk begins to ask the security questions, and Atta claims not to understand English. She calls the supervisor. He tries to interpret for a while, but Atta plays dumb. Since they have no one who speaks Arabic, the supervisor says to send him on down to the gate. Atta then makes a five-minute jog to the gate.

That's about five minutes at the counter (at the most), five minutes to the gate, where the attendant noticed him perspiring and that he was late.

Please remember that - Atta was late to the gate, and not the baggage check-in counter. It will be important later on.

What happened to MacFarlane at the ticket counter: He arrived five minutes late to the ticket counter. He was denied entrance, because he was late.

Atta was not late to the baggage counter, but late to the gate.
MacFarlane was late to the ticket counter.

It's clear that Atta's incident at the baggage check-in counter occured moments before MacFarlane approached the ticket counter. Atta just made the deadline at baggage, bluffed his way through security, and ran to the gate, where he was late. MacFarlane may have missed Atta by no more than a minute.

And why didn't Seth MacFarlane simply use the self-service or curbside check in?

I don't know. Why don't you ask him?

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

You're right, I misread the report.

:shrug:

...and don't get me wrong on this, because I respect your posting tremendously, but I believe that you are discussing the messenger as well as the message. I understand your viewpoint is hardwon, but we don't know the hearts and minds of our discussion participants.

For the record, RH corrected my reading of the newpaper reports. It's clear from them that MacFarlane arrived at the ticket counter at least 5 minutes after Flight 11 left the gate. MacFarlane wasn't allowed onto the plane, because the plane was gone. Atta was allowed onto the plane because the plane was still there.

Gone v. Still There.

If the plane is gone, you must be wrong.

Sometimes you don't see the forest for the trees. This is one of those times for me, and I thank you, RH, for pointing that out.

the disruptively deleted message thus alluded entirely and exclusively to subjects already discussed together, not to any particular messenger.

that you could have gotten out of that oone by simply dismissing Faux and Worldnet Daily as "sloppy reporters" trying desperately to prove a point.

It is not like they have any credibility in the first place, we just check in with them to see what lies they are spewing forth.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16892

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21118

Faux and WhirledViewsDaily are as slanted as right wing sources of news come, but since you were willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, I thought I'd show that these interpretation of their reports is even less credible than the reports themselves.

Just because Faux says it's so, doesn't mean it's true.
Just because Faux says it's so, doesn't mean it's false.

The evidence independently weighed gives the verification to the statement.

I recall doubting the story of the first test-tube baby because for months the only place I saw anything about it was the National Enquirer. Then little Jessica was born, and it hit the mainstream press. What a valuable lesson I learned there.

Independent verification is the key. Accept no substitutes. All information must check in at the gate and pass security clearances.

"He walked toward Gate 26, where the plane that would be designated Flight 11 had been waiting for him since the night before."

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/globe_stories/0916/Reliving_the_morning_of_death+.shtml

--------------------

"Carrier Code: AA, Date: 09/10/2001, Flight Number: 0198, Tail Number: N334AA, Destination Airport, BOS Actual Departure Time: 21:49"

http://www.bts.gov/cgi-bin/ntda/oai/DetailedStatistics/OAI_G1.PL

----------------------

So N334AA, the plane known to have flown as Flight 11 on 09/11/2001 was definitely not waiting for him since the night before. It had departed from San Fransisco the night before on its way to Boston.

The BTS database also shows that the arcraft had flown to San Fransisco from Boston the day before.

So perhaps we have here some careless reporting. Perhaps one plane had indeed been waiting but another one was used.

Whichever way Mitchell Zuckoff does not say that gate 26 was used, only that John Ogonowski walked toward it.

who was in charge of filing the BTS data made a "sloppy report."
:evilgrin:

of sloppyness. The departure data appears to be normal.

The problem is simply that the arrival data is missing.

More likely then that the requisite data was still aboard the aircraft when it hit the WTC, therefore lost.

Logan Airport traffic control would have NO IDEA of when,
if ever,
THAT plane landed at their airport.
It is asking WAY TOO MUCH to expect that AN AIRPORT THAT IS ITSELF MANDATED TO REPORT DATA TO THE BTS could manage to hold onto that type of data.
NO, all relevant data pertaining to AA Flight 11 that is missing - INCLUDING THE BLOODY BLACK BOXES - is ONLY missing because Mr. Mohammed Atta willed it so.
And THAT is the most AMAZING CASE of mind over matter that the world has yet witnessed.

No cover up.
No fakery here.
No need to investigate further.
http://www.help-for-you.com/news/Oct2001/Oct14/PRT14-16Article.html
And tell those Logan Air Control Personnel to SHUT UP GODAMMIT.
Everything is classified.
And everything that is NOT classified is "sloppy reporting."
Capiche?

Where were you? On another Planet?

Did you not even bother to follow the New York Times link supplied in the message that began this thread?

The departure and take off times of Flight 11 and Flight 77 were widely pulished.

Transcsripts of air traffic control communicatons were published.

is true.

There is no such thing as sloppy reporting.
And the New York Times,
the employer of Judith Miller,
and now, Jayson Blair,
has no credibility problems whatsoever.
http://www.fair.org/extra/0003/crossette-iraq.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/blum0820.html

Thus we have no need to cross-reference other articles from other sources with information gleaned from the actual entities that are involved.
We should simply accept what we are told.
And Rush to say "ditto."

that everything that is published is true.

And if for just one moment or two you ever manage to drag yourself away from the nutshell of your vanity you may find that I constantly seek corroboration when responding for instance to Woody.

So how then are we to make sense of your present comment?

The BTS database is published and yet it has been vigorously invoked, notwithstanding the unambiguous disclaimer published by BTS, as if to prove that two Flights did not exist, notwisthanding in turn an abundance of evidence from elsewhere to show that the flights did exist.

So why then, please, would the BTS database, alongside a disclaimer, be any more reliable than an ATC transcript alongside no such disclaimer?

What are your rules of evidence?

Do tell, please, seriously, what particular standard should information live up to before you accept it as reliable?

American Airlines didn't provide the info about Flights 11 and 77. They decided not to require the information from AA at this late date. No one there considered the possibility that Flights 11 and 77 didn't exist. That, as you know, is ludicrous. :D

I meant to imply no lack of appreciation for that.

On the contrary, in instances where doubt may arise but it is nevertheless easy enough to invite a source to supply an explanation, it is of course impolite, unhelpfully insulting, if not flagrantly libellous for the ranters to impugn so recklessly, with no attempt to consult the source in question.

I am continually astounded to discern that the deliberately ignorant propaganda of so many in this vicinity would somewhow hope to be intended to represent itself as honest, impartial objective research.

Do they never even notice that it gets them nowhere?

...hehehehe.

With all the scattered commentary on three or four different threads (interesting, that), I wasn't sure if you saw that post of mine. Glad to see that you have.

The issue was the departure gate for an American Airlines Flight, hence whether or not a suggested explanation fits.

What then, please explain, would possibly be the relevance to that of the following 21 issues, if they were not intended to distract for want of anything appropriate to contribute?


1. screening passengers entering the United flight

2. a man who toured the tower at Logan

3. videotaping crews on their flights

4.customers bused from Terminal C to Terminal E for customs clearance and baggage pick-up.

5.Madeline Amy Sweeney's call to the AA control center at Logan

6.the bin Laden family airlift.

7.American Airlines International Arrivals

8.Code-share partners switching planes with each other.

9.Departure gate deadlines

10. Names on tickets.

11. Insurance industry exclusion clauses

12. Carriers sued by plaintiffs

13. Colgan Air as a US Airways code-share partner.

14. insurance coverage

15. airlines’ bankruptcies

16. code-share

17. cutting the air service subsidies,

18. a retractable-blade utility knife on a 19-seat propeller plane

19. Radio communications of Flight 11

20. A Saab.

21. Abdulaziz Alomari getting checked in BEFORE Atta?

What then,
please explain,
would possibly be the relevance to that of the previous 21 questions,
if they were not intended to distract
for want of anything appropriate to contribute?

Now,
RH has asked:
If gate 26 was the usual departure gate for the other destination, the route to LA, would it not then make sense for a switch to be made, to use gate 32 as the departure gate on this particular occassion?

That would mean that
American Airlines REFUSED TO USE ITS OWN GATE FOR ITS OWN PLANE.
THE AMERICAN FLIGHT LEFT FROM GATE 26 IN TERMINAL B
Look at the map:..."

We already looked at a map!

See message #30

i.e.
There is a gate 32 At Terminal B

And it is run by AA, check out AA website and map of Logan Airport with their gates, they operate gates 22-36 on Terminal B. see link

http://www.aa.com/content/aboutAA/whereWeFly/terminals/terminal_BOS.jhtml

A commerical plane - in the USA - CANNOT just switch gates any old time it...?

:spank:

Instead of being so willfully ignorant check out the AA website.

The Airline provides a Flight Status Notification service because they can and do just switch gates any old time:

https://www.aa.com/apps/travelInformation/CreateFSN.jhtml

Notice About Flight Status Notification:

"Be sure to check airport monitors for any last minute updates since flight status and gate information may change at any time"

Their words, not mine.

Why is the gate number important? I just don't see what theory you're advancing here.

...tin foil on? :tinfoilhat: Check.

Some have told us of alternate vessels used in the attack on public buildings, vessels that were not Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93. Those buildings were attacked with military jets or cruise missiles painted to resemble passenger jets. To account for the missing passengers, various theories to account for the missing passenger flights have been proposed.

I believe that our friends are seeking to show that the passengers, through trickery at the airport, never actually got onto their flights. Thus all of the landings and offloadings and relaunches are not needed. The switcheroo happened at the airport.

There's also the side angle of speculating that on September 11, American Flights 11 and 77 were never scheduled and did not exist at all that day. Now there's only United Flights 175 and 93 to deal with.

Tinfoil off? :-) Check.

At the rate we're going, I'm expecting to be told that the World Trade Center never actually existed to be knocked down. No planes, no passengers, no buildings. The Bush adminstration did it all on the TV.

There's a question I hadn't considered...hmmm, time for a new post.

that I didn't answer your question yet. But this here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=6382&mesg_id=6681&page=

should show you the direction of my thinking.

anything important.

As far as multiple overseas flights within 30 minutes, it's completely normal. You should see the strings of 3-5 overseas Delta flights that leave Atlanta, all 10 miles in trail of each other.

Obviously some people embarked another plane (at gate 26) than the one which was going to crash into the North Tower (at gate 32).

These people didn't die in the North Tower.

Where did they die?

Don't you think that's important?

there be an airline squawking about a missing airplane?

Are you suggesting that there were two aircraft (one at gate 26 and one at gate 32) that went missing that day? If that's true, why aren't there a lot of people with missing family members making noise?

I really think it's just a mixup with gate numbers.

Please explain, Mr. Generalizer: What was going wrong exactly? What gate did flight 11 start from? What do you say then to the evidence for the other gate?

Are you suggesting that there were two aircraft (one at gate 26 and one at gate 32) that went missing that day? If that's true, why aren't there a lot of people with missing family members making noise?

Because very few family members know the gate number. They were told it left at gate 26. Nobody was talking of gate 32. But wait a little bit, I'm sure some family members know of the problem by now and think about how to deal with it.

Did you make up your mind, Mercurio? Where did flight 11 start?

Gate 26?

Or Gate 32?

Or was there a flight designated as "flight 11" at both gates?

Numbers get mixed up at times, but rarely do we lose entire aircraft. I believe there are only two possibilities:

1) AAL11 was at gate 26 and everybody left from gate 26.

2) AAL11 was at gate 32 and everybody left from gate 32.

There very well have been an aircraft at whichever gate AAL11 was not at, but it had nothing to do with 9/11.

You've raised a question. That's good. I just don't see any scenario that makes it anymore that a recordkeeping glitch (need proof of innacurate recordkeeping? United hasn't cancelled the N-numbers on its two downed flights...years later...).

People are not perfect.

This statement may seem obvious to most people but evades others.

I was involved in a police investigation with a police officer who believed in perfection. It was hell on wheels.

I sent someone on a wild goose chase looking for some forms because I thought I saw them lying on a counter somewhere. During the trip, he was involved in a car accident. The police officer began investigating and soon discovered that the forms were not there, had never been there and hence didn't believe any of my story and began concocting a wild conspiracy theory.

The simple truth of the matter was that I wasn't perfect and saw some other things I thought were the forms.

People involved in the aircraft industry aren't perfect. I sat in the cockpit of a small aircraft with a pilot with thousands of hours of experience while he:

• announced to the world that he was in Calgary (nope, he was in Edson)
  
• set his altimeter to the wrong pressure (transposed digits)
  
• announced to the world his intention to taxi to a non-existent runway
  

I've sat in a terminal (Toronto) watching the mad scramble to re-organize planes when my flight had a "cosmetic problem".

I've worked as a volunteer police officer. An officer told me one day that the (informal) first rule of an investigation is:

"Shit happens".

My partner used to be incredibly paranoid and constantly want to know where I was and would get panicky and starting paging me and phoning my cell if I was two minutes late. He finally got it through his head that there were such things as:

• traffic
  
• traffic lights
  
• my tendency to daydream and get lost
  
• my tendency to get thirsty and stop for a Coke
  

In many of these conspiracy threads I keep seeing this expectation for people to be perfect, for people to witness things perfect, for TV cameras to work perfectly, for image compression software to work perfectly.

Get it through your head.

Shit happens.

but at which gate? 26 or 32?

One reporter said 26, another said 32.

Nobody's perfect.

Looks like one went with a witness, one went with the schedule.

So what?

Flight 11 left from Gate 32. That is the gate number that is reflected in the transcript. That is the gate number where the 200 American Airlines employees gathered a year after the attacks. That is one of two gates at Boston that has an American Flag affixed at the end of the jetway marking the location the ill-fated flight departed from. The other is C-19 where United 175 departed from.

Flight 11 was supposedly a Boeing 767 - a widebody jet. Gate 32 is configured to be able to accomodate a wide body jet. Gate 26 is not. It can only handle narrow body jets like a 757, 737 or MD-80.

So why did so many in the media report Gate 26? Shoddy reporting. They are obviously confusing the departure gate American Airlines Flight 11 used a BOS (Terminal B Gate 32) with the departure gate American Airlines Flight 77 used out of Dulles. (Gate D26)

I'm not quite sure why some people are trying to figure out where a Sabena plane might have possibly come from. Flight 11 wasn't told to wait for a Sabena plane to pass. Flight 11 was told to wait for a Saab to pass.

A Saab is a type of commuter aircraft, and most likely it was an American Eagle flight scheduled to depart Boston at 7:45 a.m. for Rochester, NY. It's tail number was N903AE although in the BTS on time reports for American Eagle it shows the tail as N903MP. N903AE is a Saab. It pushed back from it's gate four minutes early at 7:41 and took off at 7:49 and most likely was the aircraft that Flight 11 was told to wait for.

Also on the transcript at around 7:55 a.m. or so American 11 is told "Continental's waiting for you." I believe this is in reference to a Continental jet that had landed (I can't remember where from - Newark maybe and www.bts.gov is down right now so I can't check) at 7:53 a.m. but didn't get to it's gate until 8:04. Most likely this Continental jet landed and then "waited" for Flight 11 to go by before proceeding to it's gate.

As for what flight might have been at Gate 26 in Boston's Terminal B around 7:25 a.m. - the time passengers were seen boarding - my guess is that it was the aircraft that operated as Flight 138 from San Jose, CA. It was scheduled to arrive at 6:01 a.m. but it was an hour and fifteen minutes late and arrived at the gate at 7:16 a.m. After unloading passengers, it changed to Flight 1971 -- an 8:20 a.m. departure to San Juan. Flight 1971 ended up pushing back from it's gate 11 minutes early at 8:09 and took off at 8:34 about 20 minutes before Boston airspace was shut down.

The aircraft that operated this flight was a Boeing 757 - a narrowbody jet -- and thus could have been accomodated at Gate 26. Plus, since it was an hour and fifteen minutes late in arriving, maybe it had to use a different gate than it normally would have.

# announced to the world that he was in Calgary (nope, he was in Edson)
# set his altimeter to the wrong pressure (transposed digits)
# announced to the world his intention to taxi to a non-existent runway

:) was he drunk ?

Ok, it happened to me that I used the wrong runway (26 instead of 8), because I took of in the morning on 26 and in the late afternoon when I came back I landed on 26 .... the wind rotated and 8 was the active, so failure happens that's true.

>In many of these conspiracy threads I keep seeing this expectation for
>people to be perfect, for people to witness things perfect, for TV
>cameras to work perfectly, for image compression software to work
>perfectly.

I agree so far, but:

Very big shit happened that particular day and taking a look at the whole story (pre and post 9/11) a lot of huge shit happened at many places and in many instances of huge security systems.

This big shit is not allowed to happen and this big shit is not possible to happen.

I agree that the system is not perfect .... but I do not agree that the system is not redundant and supplies redundant security.

Go and ask airbus industries ..... they rely on redundancy ..... go and ask boeing, they rely on it aswell (Bo767 has 3 hydraulic systems and no further backup).

Did the passengers of AA 11 embark the wrong plane? Part 2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x13369

Please continue the discussion this new thread.