Question: Phone Calls?

[BeFree]

Years ago, @2003, we discussed the issue of 9/11 phone calls in this forum.

As I recall, we pretty much decided that cell phones DO NOT work at 30,000 feet and 500mph.

But airphones do because they are routed through the airplane's radio communication system.

Today questions about airphones have popped up and once again getting to the truth of the alleged 9/11 airphone calls is proving elusive.

Does anyone have any sourced info on who made the calls, and who paid for the calls? And was there ever any solid investigation regarding those calls? Or are those calls just a myth?

Thanks.

[LARED]

1. Actually I think the concensus was that cell phones

are not likely to work well at 30,000 feet. Where you got the 500 mph number is a mystery.

[BeFree]

3. Well

Don't airplanes at 30,000 feet go about 500mph?

[LARED]

2. Also, does this mean you are not a no-planer. I can't remember. nt

[defendandprotect]

15. Why does that matter? If the "phone calls" are fake that info should be known . . .

and "tapes" would then be rather incriminating . . . !!!

[LARED]

21. It matters because no planers

are considered strictly for entertainment.

[BeFree]

22. So

You have nothing except what TV told you? You accept that calls were made even tho there is no evidence that calls were made? If there is evidence - logs, bills, etc. that calls were made you'd show us those sources, right?

Remember something that says to not bear false witness?
Recall that? Do you strive to live that, or what?

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Have you listened to the phone call from 93 yet? n/t

[LARED]

41. I'm not going to show you anything

After providing links for years, and getting responses that basically say any evidence provided by anyone that believes the so called official story is by definition suspect, I've given up those types of discussion.

Remember this is strictly for my entertainment.

If you want links try google.com

[defendandprotect]

37. Actually, you're my entertainment here --

Again -- having dummied tapes is a smoking gun in itself --

Especially with officials like Ted Olsen coming out to lie about it ---

[Bolo Boffin]

40. Have you listened to what you are calling a "dummied" tape?

Have you listened to CeeCee Lyles say goodbye to her husband?

[LARED]

42. Translation for "dummied tapes is a smoking gun "

I disagree with the facts so it's a dummy tape.

[defendandprotect]

44. No . . . IF the tapes are shown to be "dummied" it would be a smoking gun . . .

There's a lot of information which suggests that cell-phone could not have been used --

Additionally at least two of the alleged flights supposedly didn't have airphone on them.

What did the 9/11 Commission say about the alleged cell phone calls?

[Bolo Boffin]

47. The planes had cellphones on them.

Have you listened to CeeCee Lyles say goodbye to her husband?

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Bushco of the Gaps. n/t

[BeFree]

5. Bolo

You've reminded me of something. Don't you see the OCT as if it were Humpty-Dumpty?

There it sat on the wall, then it took a great fall, all the king's horses and all the king's men could not put HD-OCT together again. The OCT is going down, eh?

Oh, who told you about the airphones? The TV?

[Bolo Boffin]

6. The Moussaoui exhibits included a Flash presentation of the airphone calls

A recording of one was released in this presentation, one of the Flight 93 passengers.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html

The page the Flash presentation is actually downloadable from:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200055.html

[NowHearThis]

7. There are alleged summaries from the M. trial, but no records...

such as billing/payment records. Airfone calls would ordinarily have to, by definition, have been placed from inside an airplane, presumably during the course of a flight. Therefore, foundational evidence of alleged callers having actually boarded an aircraft from which calls were supposedly placed must first be provided.

It's unlikely that any such airfone calls were made by Mrs. Olson aboard AA FL77 unless she was a magician, given that FL 77 was
not scheduled for 9/11 and given that there's no evidence that she or anyone else even boarded an airplane on 9/11. A photo, alleged to be that of one of the Arabs isn't proof that he boarded the aircraft. As far as I know, there is no evidence that anyone boarded an airplane at Dulles that was supposed to be AA FL 77 on 9/11.

[BeFree]

8. Wow

I remember some of this and one poster here sourced records similar to your claim that several flights weren't even scheduled that day but were alleged to have been involved.

Probably part of the unanswered questions from the widows group, too.

[William Seger]

12. It definitely proves...

... that no-planers will believe almost anything, no matter how idiotic, as long as it's not the "official story."

American Airlines should know whether or not the flights were scheduled:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/witness_arpey.htm

This particular "not scheduled" idiotic bullshit is the result of some no-planers being unable to find AA77 or AA175 in the online http://www.bts.gov">Bureau of Transportation Statistics database. But that's not a flight scheduling system -- read the name again -- it's a system to track departure and arrival times, to evaluate on-time performance. United apparently reported departure times for UA11 and UA93, but of course no arrival times. American apparently didn't report anything for their flights, because they were hijacked.

This is just one of the ways that the leaders of the "no-plane movement" earned their reputation for being incredibly stupid.

[NowHearThis]

13. If no one boarded FL 77 , how could calls be made from it?

Official records showed that FL 77 wasn't a scheduled flight on 9/11. Those records may have been doctored sometime after 9/11 to reflect that it WAS scheduled and the original BTS records fail to establish that any such flight took off that date & those
records may have also been doctored after the fact to falsely reflect a takeoff.

The photo(s) of one of the alleged hijackers walking thru the terminal only establishes that he MAY have been there on 9/11, but even if it can be proven that he WAS present in the terminal on that date, that certainly isn't proof that he boarded an aircraft. Lots of
people other than passengers and crew go to airport terminals for one reason or another.

My own view is that the alleged hijackers WERE present at Dulles airport. That was part of the plan, as I mentioned on the other
thread. The only surprise is that NO photo of Mrs. Olson inside the terminal has ever been released. That of course, presumes that
one exists.

Therefore, without proof that anyone boarded an airliner that was supposed to be FL 77 on 9/11, how could calls be made from it?
They couldn't be. But, calls COULD have been made (by Mrs. Olson) from inside the Pentagon. There wouldn't have been enough time
to make the calls from Dulles and then get to the Pentagon in time for what she believed was going to be a simulated hijacking and possibly a mock crash there. And, it is theoretically possible that an airfone could have been used at the Pentagon by Mrs. Olson, but realistically, it's more likely that she used a cell phone. That would account for the problems getting through, calls being dropped etc. It would be harder to explain if she had used a land line to call Mr. Olson, although it's theoretically possible that she did. Remember, she supposedly made the calls during a flight.

It might have complicated things more if she had been instructed to use an airfone when she was at the Pentagon and not at the
airport! Including potential legal issues for the airline which may not have been easy to control later on if it were to become
necessary to do so in order to protect the viability of the Official story.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

28. there was no flight 77

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Tell that to the parents of the kids on the National Geographic field trip. n/t

[defendandprotect]

18. Yes . . . it was announced by the airline -- United? But got very little attention . . .

i.e., no one in the press discovered that - the airline volunteered the info -- !!!

[LARED]

9. Are you some type of weird prankster?

No one can possibly believe the nonsense you just posted.

[Ohio Joe]

11. But they do

In truth, it scares me in the same way religious fundies scare me.

[Ghost in the Machine]

19. psssstttt.... don't insult LARED by talking about religious people...

.. he's religious, and even teaches that crap to others:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=237772#238093

[LARED]

20. Why would I be insulted? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

10. A couple of the phone call recording are in that exhibit I linked to.

Play them. Listen to people about to die on those planes.

Then keep playing your silly games.

[defendandprotect]

16. I believe the info was that there was no record of any of these calls. . .

[defendandprotect]

17. If no phone call from Barbara, then Olsen was involved . . . heavily!!!

[defendandprotect]

14. Not at hand right now . . . but --

I'm sure you know that there weren't airphones on one or more of the hijacked "planes."

I think I saw you referencing that info elsewhere?

And agree that the conclusion was that cell phones were impossible --

I think the "calls" worked to fool the public -- the info on them is getting squishier

by the minute and Olsen withdrew his claims, I think?

But the "tapes" are incriminating in themselves, aren't they -- !!!

The "tapes" are smoking guns in a way.

dum-de-dum-dum . . .

[William Seger]

24. Congratulations

[defendandprotect]

38. So you're saying the airline didn't say the flights weren't scheduled on 9/11. . . ???

[William Seger]

54. That's correct: They did not say any such thing

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/witness_arpey.htm

Now, go ahead and embarrass yourself further by dredging up the story of someone editing the Wikipedia article. That should be good for a few laughs.

[NowHearThis]

56. AA flight schedules at the time showed it wasn't scheduled on 9/11

It's been a long time since I've seen the records, and I'm not 100% positive if it was only AA whose flight schedule showed that
FL 77 was NOT a scheduled flight on 9/11...but I seem to recall that there was some kind of Government record which also
showed it wasn't scheduled. I think it was BTS records. Government records of all flights also did NOT show any such take-off
for AA FL 77 on 9/11.

About a year or so after 9/11, the records were doctored and I believe they now show that FL 77 was scheduled and did take off
on 9/11.

[SDuderstadt]

71. "The records were doctored"

Translation: I didn't really research this properly, so now I'll just claim a record that existed all along that contradicts my goofy claim was "doctored" a year later.

[NowHearThis]

72. Are you saying the records WEREN'T doctored?

Is it your contention that the records weren't doctored and that to this day they still show that AA FL 77 was not a scheduled
flight on 9/11/01? I thought I read somewhere that the records were changed after some 9/11 researchers discovered the
embarrassing information that a non-existent flight couldn't have crashed if it weren't flying and it wasn't flying if it
wasn't scheduled to do so.

If you have any new information that you feel would shed more light on this, please post. You may omit labeling serious
charges as being "goofy claims". That kind of juvenile behavior should be beneath you.

[SDuderstadt]

74. One last time, Dude....

the BTS isn't a SCHEDULE. It's a database of on-time performance. You keep trying to conflate it into a "schedule" so it will support your goofy theory, but the only proof that either AA flight was "not scheduled to fly" would be the contemporaneous flight schedules from AA and other sources (OAG, etc.) and I'm pretty sure you didn't check said schedules on the day of the flight. Why don't you just simply admit that the BTS is not a "schedule", admit your theory is silly, and quit this charade?

[NowHearThis]

76. If you have un-doctored proof that FL 77 was scheduled, show it.

nt

[SDuderstadt]

77. No, dude...

it's YOUR claim, remember? YOU have the burden of proof to show that neither AA flight was scheduled to fly (which is kinda hard with a fucking DAILY flight). Hint: am after-the-fact on-time performance database is NOT a schedule. You got duped, dude.

[NowHearThis]

78. In other words, you can't refute the fact that FL 77 was not...

a scheduled flight on 9/11/01. No flight, no crash. Another of the BIG lies about 9/11, laid to rest. NEXT.

[SDuderstadt]

79. nice try, dude...

but you're trying to wriggle out of the burden of proof here. if it's a ''fact', you should be able to provide some clear, readily available evidence of an actual schedule, not your goofy misinterpretation of an after-the-fact database (which, again, is not a schedule). in fact, the bts database actually goes against your claim. if, as you claim, aa 77 was not regularly scheduled on 9/11, why would the bts even have a slot for it in its listings for that day? do you realize how silly it sounds as opposed to the far more logical conclusion that aa did not report data simply because the fucking flight was hijacked and crashed into the pentagon? this is on par with arguing that the data from the fdr found in the pentagon proves aa77 didn't crash into the pentagon.

[NowHearThis]

80. Typically poor Untruther response, dude.

Show me a undoctored flight schedule that lists FL77 as a scheduled flight on 9/11. You can't, dude. Face it, dude, your posts
are a joke. If people knew who you are, I'm certain you would try to avoid embarrassing yourself, dude.

[AZCat]

81. Perhaps you should reflect on your own advice...

the next time you decide to post.

If people knew who you are, I'm certain you would try to avoid embarrassing yourself, dude.

[NowHearThis]

83. Help the SDUD poster out, Mr. or Ms. Cat

Can you show any undoctored proof that FL77 was scheduled for 9/11?

[AZCat]

86. He doesn't need my help.

The burden of proof isn't on SDuderstadt.

[SDuderstadt]

87. I see you're still trying to "shift the burden of proof"...

it's YOUR claim and YOUR burden of proof. Do you have a contemporaneous schedule from 9/11 that shows a daily flight was somehow inexplicably not scheduled for that day? Of course not; you're trying to pass off an after-the-fact on-time database as a "schedule". Further, your claim doesn't even make logical sense. If, as you claim, the victims were willing participants in a hijack simulation, why would the "perps" take the flight off the AA schedule?

I can just see it now:

AA: "Folks, we are not actually going to fly today. Instead, you will all be participating in a simulated hijacking".

Passengers (in unison): "Oh, goody!".

AA: "You will all also, unfortunately, die in this exercise.".

Passengers (in unison): "Sounds reasonable.".

[SDuderstadt]

82. Dude...it's YOUR claim...not mine....

YOU have the burden of proof. Why don't you just admit that you have NO proof of your goofy claim and quit pretending that the BTS is some sort of "schedule". You really ought to fact-check goofy CT website claims before embarrassing yourself here.

[NowHearThis]

84. Have you lost your mind, dude?

You claim FL 77 crashed into the Pentagon, but that could only have happened on 9/11 if FL 77 actually flew on that day.
You've been asked to provide proof that it did, but after countless requests, you have failed to produce any evidence
that FL 77 was scheduled on 9/11.

Some of us have even tried to give you a way to salve your embarrassment by including the qualifier "doctored". It isn't
a totally face-saving solution, but at least it would allow you to be consistent with your support of other
doctored evidence such as the cartoon planes that were inserted into video images of the WTC and Nike swoosh images that
were allegedly made on September 12, 2001.

[OnTheOtherHand]

85. cue spooky music

I, for one, have no idea what you would accept as evidence that Flight 77 was scheduled on 9/11. The BTS records indicate that it flew on 8/7, 8/14, 8/21, 8/28, and 9/4, but I guess that could just be a lucky streak.

Do you think the flight was actually canceled on 9/11? or have you not gotten that far yet?

[SDuderstadt]

88. Actually, I could, dude...

but it requires a paid subscription to OAG and I don't need it. But, in any event, it's silly for you to try to keep wriggling out of your burden of proof by pretending it's mine. YOU made the original claim and YOU have the burden of proof. I haven't laughed this hard since RWers demanded that Clinton prove that he didn't rape Juanita Broadderick.

[BeFree]

27. Thanks

I did not know that some planes did not have airphones....hmmm

Oh, do me a favor and thank Will for his picture of the opposition we face.
He replied to you with the pic of FOS Dick. FOS means: Fundies Official Story and you can fill in the rest. It was nice of him to show a graphic representation of those who keep the faith; that undying faith in their OCT.

Where would we be without them?

[Bolo Boffin]

30. Airphones

There's one that was recovered at Shanksville.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[defendandprotect]

45. Really good debate Seger ---

I'm impressed, as always --

You wouldn't be working on distractions by any chance . . . ?

[William Seger]

48. What debate?

"Debating" no-planers would imply that it's debatable whether or not there were 4 plane crashes on 9/11? I don't usually respond to anything you post because it's almost always the same junk that's been debunked hundreds of times since at least '06, like the "flights not scheduled" and the "no airphones" nonsense. At least Spooked911 is coming up with imaginative new "evidence" all the time. You're just kinda boring.

[defendandprotect]

50. Distraction is not debate, as I pointed out . . .

and, in regard to American Airlines, when you're not so busy making personal attacks
maybe you'd like to repeat your debate on the revised info . . . just for the record?

The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
(www.bts.gov/gis/ ) do not list either flight that day.

American Airlines - "9/11 Didn't Happen"

WikiScanner discovered that American Airlines changed their
Wikipedia entry to state that Flights 11 and 77 never flew on 9/11.

Original entry was:

Two
American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the
September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: American Airlines Flight 77 (a
Boeing 757) and American Airlines Flight 11 (a Boeing 767).

New entry is:

Two American Airlines aircraft
were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist
Attack: Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and Flight 11 (a Boeing 767). Although
these flights were daily departures before and a month after September
11, 2001. Neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled on September 11,
2001. The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
(www.bts.gov/gis/) do not list either flight that day.

A Google search of the IP address that made the change - 144.9.8.21 - is located at American Airlines.

Why the change American airlines? Did the flights actually operate or did we just imagine all of that?

I was asked to show proof of this happening, so here it is, right from wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=50132865

Revision . .

Although these flights were daily departures before and a month after September 11, 2001. Neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled on September 11, 2001. The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov/gis/) do not list either flight that day.

http://www.nowpublic.com/american-airlines-9-11-didnt-happen

[Bolo Boffin]

52. So 175 and 93 were real, correct? n/t

[William Seger]

53. But I already did

... in post #12. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics database is NOT a flight scheduling system. It's an on-time performance tracking system, and it depends on the airlines themselves to report their flight data. United apparently reported departure times for their hijacked flights and reported them as "diverted" with no arrival time. American apparently didn't report anything for their hijacked flights -- because they were hijacked! -- so there was nothing in the database. Wow, what a mystery! Technically, American probably should have reported the flights as "diverted" as United did, but if they didn't report anything, then it wouldn't be in the BTS database. End of story. American, however, did submit a "canceled" status for subsequent days.

So even though the airlines actually use systems like Sabre (which was originally developed for American) for scheduling flights, not the freakin' BTS on-time performance database, no-planers assert the absurdity that even though AA11 and AA77 were in the database every day before and after 9/11, for some strange reason they weren't "scheduled" for 9/11 -- even though they were vital to the government murder plot -- for no apparent reason except to leave an incriminating clue for super-sleuth Gerald Holmgren.

So, go find out what schedule was in Sabre for 9/11, and come back when you actually have something.

But I'll bet you won't do that; you won't even try. This is why it's a complete waste of time to "debate" no-planers. They are not rational people, and they seize on total garbage as "evidence" to try to justify delusions that are certainly not based on evidence, and they refuse to let it go.

[NowHearThis]

49. DIstractions?

Yes. He pulls them out of his ass all the time and thinks they're pearls.

[defendandprotect]

51. You know ....

The more you look at this stuff the odder it gets --

Re American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 allegedly hijacked . . .

Although these flights were daily departures before and a month after September
11, 2001. Neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled on September 11, 2001.

Presumably, American Airlines hasn't filed an insurance claim on these planes?

And why did they feel it necessary to officially correct the record . . .

must have been some kind of pressure on them - perhaps the insurance company

or realizing that the official records would be checked?

The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
(www.bts.gov/gis/ ) do not list either flight that day.

Even odder, when you start thinking about it, since they were both NORMAL, DAILY

FLIGHTS . . . did someone ask them not to fly them that day?


Presuming that those who did this really didn't want to have to simultaneously hijack

four flights -- and actually crash them into anything -- ???

[NowHearThis]

57. I should have read all of your new posts before my above posts

You bring up something I've never thought about before: "did someone ask them not to fly them that day?".

That's a very, very interesting question and it makes very good sense to me that someone DID ask UA and AA
not to "fly them" that day.

EXCELLENT post. Many thanks. VERY thought-provoking.

[defendandprotect]

39. You know . . .

these links and information are around -- fortunately someone always has them
bobbing up again - but you can't save all of them!

Obviously a number of these links are going to have to be chased down again!

[defendandprotect]

46. I think Olsen changed his story on the calls --

he withdrew the cell phone claim and moved to airphone and that also

got confusing -- because he was also claiming that Barbara didn't have her

credit card available to make the call. So, basically, he's been chaning

what he originally claimed and still questions about where he was on last claims.


Also remember the fake claim by officials that "Air Force One had a threatening message!"

A lot of unverified communications going on that day!

Did you also notice that Bush went to Offutt A/F Base on 9/11?

I think that behavior was as equally strange as his inaction at the school where he

was advised of the terrorist attacks.

[NowHearThis]

31. 9/11 phone calls from "passengers" were NOT made in planes

Technical issues about whether it was even possible to make cell phone calls aboard an airliner at cruising altitude aside, the
more important question about phone calls from "passengers" is WHERE were they placed from.

In my opinion if any of the alleged calls were actually made, they were made at one or more sites on the ground.

[Bolo Boffin]

32. Listen to CeeCee Lyle's phone call in that Flash Presentation.

She made it from an airphone. It was recording because she got her husband's answering machine.

Listen to CeeCee Lyles say goodbye to her husband. Then come back and tell me and everyone else here that this phone call was faked.

[NowHearThis]

34. You're dancing like you have a different pair of legs.

Is that YOU, Boloboffin? The one and only?

[Bolo Boffin]

35. I don't play games when it comes to 9/11 victims calling their husband and saying goodbye.

I do notice when the people with whom I am discussing this issue begin to dance.

Listen to the phone call. Then you tell me if that person is faking it.

[SDuderstadt]

33. Your opinion doesn't mean anything here, dude...

proof and evidence, of which you have neither, does.

[Woody Box]

23. UA 93 passengers Tom Burnett, CeeCee Lyles, Marion Britton

have called from their cell phone, according to the people they called up. Deena Burnett, f.i., was just talking on the phone to someone else when the phone number of her spouse popped up on the display: cell phone call. Q. E. D.

This call occured at a time when UA93 was still at cruising altitude. UA93 switched off the transponder at 9:41, but until then its altitude was between 35000 ft and 41000 ft.

I'm not that familiar with the other calls, but here is a good overview:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread344310/pg1

[Bolo Boffin]

26. Have you listened to the phone call from 93 yet? n/t

[defendandprotect]

43. As I recall it, the 9/11 Commission didn't do much on the "calls" . . . if anything at all...???

Supposedly, there is no record of these calls --
billing info, etal --

“For our present purposes, the main implication is that the government has covertly admitted that most of the alleged cellphone calls on Flight 93 could not have occurred. This admission implies that these calls must have been fabricated. And if those calls were fabricated, why should we not assume that the Airfone calls, in which the same kinds of things were said, were also fabricated?”

TWO of the alleged flights -- given the type of plane -- supposedly didn't have airphones!

[Kesha]

55. At least AA77, a 757, had no seat phones...

...according to American Airlines:

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX:

Thank you for contacting Customer Relations. I am pleased to have the opportunity to assist you.

That is correct we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack. However, the pilots are able to stay in constant contact with the Air Traffic Control tower.

Mr. XXXXXXXX, I hope this information is helpful. It is a privilege to serve you.

Sincerely,
Chad W. Kinder
Customer Relations
American Airlines

See http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html for reference

[NowHearThis]

58. Right. Mrs. Olson called Ted from a cell phone while inside the...

Pentagon. She was not aboard a non-existent flight and she wasn't a magician who could make calls on a non-existent air phone.

[defendandprotect]

59. Keep in mind also that two of the planes supposed didn't have airphones . ..!!!

And the two American Airlines flights #11 and #77 supposedly weren't scheduled

to fly on 9/11 . . . !!!

[SDuderstadt]

60. D&P thinks the BTS...

is the schedule. What a hoot.

[Kesha]

61. That`s uninteresting...

American Airlines confirmed in Kindler`s reply to our request that AA 77 wasn`t equipped
with air phones.

No airphones - no calls.
Quite simple.

[Kesha]

63. BTS is even better...

A schedule is just a schedule, but BTS reports the real wheels-up time of a certain flight.

[SDuderstadt]

64. can you think of why american airlines would have...

not reported this data? think real hard.

[NowHearThis]

65. Simple. Because the flights weren't scheduled. Can YOU...

think of why BUSHCO lied about this? Think real hard and HONESTLY.

[Kesha]

66. There is only one logical answer to this

See their website:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/janqtr/14cfr234.1.htm
Part of:
http://www.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatistics/src/index.xml


"PART 234--AIRLINE SERVICE QUALITY PERFORMANCE REPORTS--Table of Contents

Sec. 234.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to set forth required data that certain
air carriers must submit to the Department and to computer reservations
system vendors in computerized form, except as otherwise provided, so
that information on air carriers' quality of service can be made
available to consumers of air transportation."


Want to discuss about the meaning of "must submit"?
The fact that AA didn`t report their data only leads to
the simple conclusion that they had no data.

[SDuderstadt]

68. "There is only one logical answer to this"

Umm, no, there's not. That's just a pure lack of thinking skills. It's equally logical (or even more so) to conclude that AA, amidst having a large number of employees and passengers killed when their planes were hijacked and crashed, simply did not report anything. Obviously they had no arrival data to report; why would they report departure information for a flight that never arrived? I'm also pretty sure that the FAA has the relevant data that shows both flights took off that day. It's goofy theories like this that cause the "truth movement" to be the butt of so many jokes.

[NowHearThis]

69. What you wrote is totally ILLogical.

In fact, it's so goofy that I'm pretty sure even you don't realize it.

[SDuderstadt]

70. Look, dude...

the B.T.S. is NOT a schedule. It's an after-the-fact on-time performance database, used to track the cause of delays. How would AA have reported arrival data for flights that were hijacked and crashed into buildings? Why in the world would anyone expect an airline to report ANY data for such a flight? If you're looking for the reason why the flight was "delayed", it's pretty simple: it was fucking hijacked and flown into a building! It's nonsensical to think someone would bother with reporting departure data for a flight that never arrived when the point of the database is to provide consumers with on-time data. Even the B.T.S. has issued a disclaimer about this. If you're so convinced you're right and this is a "smoking gun". why don't you call President Obama, tell him you've got this bonbshell and get him to order the BTS to explain itself. Here's his number: [phone]. I'm sure he'll take your call.

[NowHearThis]

73. The facts do not support your claims.

"How would AA have reported arrival data for flights that were hijacked and crashed into buildings?"

AA FL77 wasn't a scheduled flight, therefore it couldn't have been hijacked, much less have crashed anywhere.

[SDuderstadt]

75. When you can produce a schedule for that day (which would actually DISPROVE your goofy claim)...

you might have something. Again, trying to claim an after-the-fact on-time performance database as a "schedule" is silly and your goofy theory falls apart.

[Kesha]

89. Typical CT answer... no facts, just subjunctively speculations

Conspiracy theories are often viewed with skepticism because they contrast with institutional analysis, and are not supported by conclusive evidence. (Wiki).

Your attitude is what we`re calling "Kangaroo policy" over here... making high hops with an empty pouch.

[Kesha]

90. HOP HOP

No answer... as expected.

You just have no evidence. And Duderstadt is 140 km away from here.

[NowHearThis]

62. Minor details that can be covered with a lie repeated over & over.

Besides, weren't all of the alleged callers trained ventriloquists?

[LARED]

67. trained ventriloquists?

Assuming you are correct (a staggeringly huge assumption) why would they use trained ventriloquists?

[defendandprotect]

91. There's some very definite info that TWO of the planes didn't have airphones . . .!!!

And some very definite info that TWO of the planes -- AA #11 and #77 --

were not scheduled to fly that day.

It would be interesting to know what insurance was collected by any of the

airlines of these supposedly "hijacked" flights, btw!!

Keeping meaning to try to check that . ..