What happened to the passengers of the "5th flight" in Boston?

[Woody Box]

Look here

http://www.geocities.com/itsinsanity2001/fbireport91801.html

or here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1550993.stm

///WASHINGTON -- The FBI is investigating the possibility that suicide hijackers were on board a fifth transcontinental airline flight last Tuesday, one that was cancelled just minutes before its scheduled 8:10 a.m. departure from Boston due to a mechanical problem, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

Federal agents are searching for an undetermined number of passengers who were on board American Airlines Flight 43, according to one source familiar with the passenger manifest. The flight was to have departed Boston 25 minutes after American Flight 11, which struck New York's World Trade Center, this source said.

In addition, one of the sources said that the FBI was "very interested" in passengers whose names appeared on the manifests of "several" other American flights that were in the air when the first attacks occurred. Those planes landed prematurely when air traffic controllers, responding to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, ordered all flights in the U.S. to touch down as soon as possible.

None of the passengers in whom the FBI has expressed interest reappeared to continue their journeys after commercial flights resumed late last week, one of the sources said. ///


Apart from the suspicious passengers the FBI was looking for (maybe a handful) - what happened to the other passengers of this cancelled flight?

Did they also take other flights?

Or did they go home?

[aquart]

1. How could they take other flights?

Everything was grounded at first. After that, the entire climate of the world and business was changed. Who wanted to fly?

You gonna check everyone who got nervous about going up in the air after 9/11 as a terrorist?

[Woody Box]

2. Too early

We're talking about 8 'o clock. No flight was grounded yet.

///You gonna check everyone who got nervous about going up in the air after 9/11 as a terrorist?///

No, I didn't say that and I didn't mean that. I want to know where these passengers of AA 43 are. I know they are no terrorists.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Perhaps they took the bus.

Perhaps they got a ticket on Amtrak.

Perhaps the reason they were flying was no longer valid (vacation, traveling to family event) and so didn't pursue their trip.

Is there a point to your speculation?

[RedSock]

4. all those suspicions

... and not one person charged with anything.

i guess there was nothing to be concerned about after all. :boring:

[SheilaT]

5. I'm a former airline ticket agent.

This is what happens when a flight cancels: you rebook the passengers on the next available plane, preferably your own airline's

Sept 11 was a Tuesday morning, and planes weren't full. It wouldn't have taken very long at all to rebook everyone and maybe most of them actually boarded new planes and took off, only to be grounded somewhere when everything was finally cancelled. Initially, as I recall from that morning, all flights in and out of NYC were cancelled, shortly after the second plane hit at 9:03am EDT. Then all flights on the east coast, followed shortly thereafter by all flights being told to land at the nearest available airport. I'm not sure how long it took for everything to land.

I do know from friends who were working that day, that passengers were their usual idiot selves and were trying to get rebooked as soon as possible, and supervisors had some trouble making them understand that nothing was flying and no one knew when anything would fly again. Airports that weren't being used as alternate landing sites (such as National Airport) were evacuated as soon as possible. The hit on the Pentagon was clearly heard at National, I'm told.

[RH]

6. Flight 43 departed from Newark at 8:10 am.

as usual, as scheduled.

Not from Boston

The fact is recorded in the BTS database:

http://www.bts.gov/cgi-bin/ntda/oai/DetailedStatistics/OAI_B1.PL

[SheilaT]

7. Thanks for posting this.

I personally think the various vague rumors I hear about a supposed fifth flight are simply figments of people's imaginations, but I didn't know where to look to refute the claim of a cancelled flight that day.

[RH]

8. but beware that

"BTS makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this website"

http://www.bts.gov/disclaimer.html

While it should at least be abundantly clear that AA43 flew regularly from Newark, not Boston, I posted the BTS link mainly for the amusement value, to highlight the remarkably selective nature of some people's version of objectivity.

Will they now comment or sulk off in silence?

While on the one hand such an extraordinarily absurd fantasy is founded upon a couple of BTS database ommissions, or whatever other unfortunately sloppy piece of journalism, a whole host of better information awaits beyond their stubbornly narrow blinkers.

[Woody Box]

9. Good find

Now we know that the cancelled flight in Boston (the one with the mechanical problem) wore the wrong label 43.

This raises two questions.

1) Which "source" is responsible for this misinformation?

2) What's the cancelled flight's number?

The BTS database does not enlist a transcontinental AA flight around 8 *o clock - usually (but not on 9/11) it's just flight 11, scheduled departure 7:45.

Strange.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. We don't know that at all.

Now we know that the cancelled flight in Boston (the one with the mechanical problem) wore the wrong label 43.

No, we don't. What we potentially know is that the report of a Flight 43 from Boston is inaccurate. The flight number could have been bobbled by the reporter or the FBI. The city of departure may have been inaccurately transmitted.

You may have noticed that 9/11 was a chaotic day. Sometimes details get misreported or blown out of proportion.

PS: What is it that you believe you are proving? Do you have a conclusion in mind?

[RH]

11. N.B."according to one source

familiar with the passenger manifest"

http://www.geocities.com/itsinsanity2001/fbireport91801.html



&

"One source told The Chicago Tribune that the FBI was searching for ...."

N.B. "One source."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1550993.stm


So because of some uncorroborated hearsay from one single anonymous source,
"we know"?

:eyes:

[Woody Box]

12. source and sources

You don't like the plural, do you?

http://www.geocities.com/itsinsanity2001/fbireport91801.html

"according to sources familiar with the investigation."

"one of the sources said that the FBI "

You agree with me that some people's version of objectivity have a remarkably selective nature, don't you? Or why do you omit these sentences?

This was not one source. There was a FBI team investigating the cancelled flight.

I want to know the number of this cancelled transcontinental flight now.

[RH]

13. remarkably selective

"Federal agents are searching for an undetermined number of passengers who were on board American Airlines Flight 43, according to one source familiar with the passenger manifest."

The words of Stephen J. Hedges and Naftali Bendavid, not mine.

"sources" then appears to refer to "other American flights", not to any incident in Boston.

And how come the "undetermined number of passengers" if the source was "familiar with the passenger manifest"?

The story obviously enough is wrong, a garbled nonsense if not a spoof in any case, so why then select it to begin with, and why then stick with it so selectivbely when a number of better versions are easily to be discovered.

google for "Fight 43" with "FBI" and Newark"

[Woody Box]

14. disinformation

RH, I fear you are the victim of carefully planned disinformation.

Your version is: sloppy journalism (in the case of Boston, of course; concerning Newark, it's good journalism, isn't it? Talking about "selective").

Last exit sloppy journalism? This is an answer of the "incompetence" type and therefore a very weak one, because you can use it whenever you want. The Tribune is a respected newspaper, do you think they were sucking the mechanical problem and the cancelled flight out of their fingers (german saying)?

This is my version: The FBI learned from this cancelled transcontinental flight as it was interrogating eyewitnesses. Someone was not happy with this investigation and wanted do deflect attention. How to do it?

Here is the solution: Give this flight a wrong number, one that you know will turn out to be wrong soon. When this happens, say just sorry and hope that everybody is thinking: "Oh, this message with the mechanical problem, the cancelled flight and the disembarked passengers is complete rubbish." As far as I can see, this is exactly what you think.

But there is a lack of logic in this thinking. If the AA spokesman admits that AA 43 started from Newark, not from Boston, at first one would think: "So, this cancelled flight doesn't belong to Boston, but to Newark." But there was no cancelled flight in Newark. AA 43 departed from the gate at 8:10, just on time.

Nobody was asking for the cancelled flight anymore.

[RH]

15. The case of Newark is confirmed

by the BTS database.

Flight 43 flew from Newark, as usual.

The Newark version is therfore to be selected as credible while the Boston version is clearly wrong; Flight 43 did not fly from Boston, right?

As yet you have nothing whatsoever to corroborate that any flight from Boston was cancelled, do you?

Apart from the mistaken Tribune article your version is nothing more than a fantasy, isn't it?

[Woody Box]

16. confirmation

//// As yet you have nothing whatsoever to corroborate that any flight from Boston was cancelled, do you? ////

You're right. The BTS database doesn't contain a cancelled flight nor a transcontinental flight from Boston with scheduled departure time 8:10.

//// Apart from the mistaken Tribune article your version is nothing more than a fantasy, isn't it? ////

You're right again. Without the Tribune article it would be pure fantasy.

But the article exists. And it was taken over by the BBC. That's why my version is no fantasy.

And that I did mistake the Tribune article, is your fantasy. I've just quoted its content: Mechanical problem, cancelled flight, disembarking passengers. My version is built upon these propositions and draws certain conclusions which still have to be proven, I admit.

Do you really think your version - someone invented the cancelled flight etc without any factual substance - is less a fantasy than mine?

[RH]

17. People make things up

to gain attention or to meet a demand, do they not?

If you do not yet believe it, look around here.

It seems to me to be incontrovertible that someone invented the version of an American Airlines Flight 43 from Boston albeit with nothing factual to support the assertion; there is no record of such an object, nor anything similar enough to surmise that an ordinary mistake took place.

I think it most likely that a reporter, without taking notes, heard a story about Flight 43 from Newark and then failed miserably to correctly recollect what he'd been told.

[Woody Box]

18. Independent confirmation: Cancelled flight in Boston

from Ben Benton, Washington correspondent of the Telegraph, without any reference to the Chicago tribune:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/19/whunt19.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=3817

FIFTH HIJACK TEAM FOILED BY CANCELLED FLIGHT, SAYS FBI

Excerpts:

//// THE FBI believes that a fifth hijack team could have been aboard an American Airlines jet that failed to take off from Boston on Sept 11 because of mechanical problems, it emerged yesterday.
...
The flight under investigation now, AA43 from Boston to Los Angeles, was almost identical to another, Flight AA11, which took off from Boston to the same destination at 7.59am, 11 minutes earlier than the scheduled departure time of the aircraft that was cancelled. ////

"Almost identical" :-) :-)


//// The cancellation of AA43, for undisclosed mechanical reasons, may have prevented another hijack atrocity, the FBI believes, although it does not know the intended target.

Sources close to the investigation said the FBI had been unable to trace several of the passengers on the flight manifest, who are believed to have Arabic names. None of those now being sought by the bureau turned up for the rescheduled flight when air travel resumed on Friday. ////


So we have now two independent reports based on FBI sources claiming in accordance with each other that there was a flight in Boston -

with the number 43
with scheduled departure time 8:10
with a mechanical problem
cancelled
with suspicious passengers the FBI was searching for

That's pretty accurate.

And now comes AA and says: There was never a flight existent with these attributes? The number is wrong, therefore the other stuff vanishes completely?

I think AA deserves a :spank:

[RH]

19. Independent? There is no Boston Flight AA43

It Telegraph story is obviously the same one, stolen word for word.

There was no Flight American 43 from Boston.

AA43 was a regular flight from Newark. It flew from Newark on Jan 1st 1995, the fist day recorded in the BTS database; It flew from Newark on Nov 30th 2003, the last day recorded in the database; it flew from Newark on September 11th 2001 and to the best of my knowledge it has flown on every other regular day.

[Woody Box]

20. No Number 43, but a cancelled flight

//// stolen word for word ///

That's not true. There are additional informations (arabic names on the manifest for example). You accuse Ben Benton of plagiarism? Let's leave it to the reader to judge.

You really doubt there was a FBI investigation into this cancelled flight???

Sorry, I think you deserve a :spank: too.

[RH]

21. There was apparently an investigation

into Flight 43 from Newark.

Did you bother to perform the search I suggested?

"Earlier in the week, reports that hijackers might have been aboard two more jets than the four crashed focused on American Airlines Flight 43, which made an emergency landing at the airport on Sept. 11. That flight originated at Newark and was bound for Los Angeles."

Saturday, September 22, 2001:
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2001/09/22/loc_muslims_detained_in.html

Because of what then exactly do you exclude the possibility that the Flight 43 from Boston version was wrong?

Given that there was no Flight 43 from Boston the report is incontrovertibly mistaken.

[RH]

22. N.B. also

"The flight (AA43 from Boston) was to have departed Boston 25 minutes after American Flight 11"

http://www.geocities.com/itsinsanity2001/fbireport91801.html

What a remarkable coincidence then, don't you think: two American Flights 43, one from Boston and one from Newark and both at exactly the same time, 25 minutes after American Flight 11?

Do I doubt that the two cases were one and the same but confused by sloppy reporting?

What do you want to bet on it, big mouth?

[RH]

23. additional informations ?

Compare the two:

"Federal agents are searching for ...according to one source familiar with the passenger manifest...
On Thursday, the FBI sent a list of several dozen Arabic-sounding names to state and local police with the request that those on the list be located for questioning. At least some of the passengers being sought are believed to be among those listed, according to one of the sources.
None of the passengers in whom the FBI has expressed interest reappeared to continue their journeys after commercial flights resumed late last week, one of the sources said."
http://www.geocities.com/itsinsanity2001/fbireport91801.html

"Sources close to the investigation said the FBI had been unable to trace several of the passengers on the flight manifest, who are believed to have Arabic names. None of those now being sought by the bureau turned up for the rescheduled flight when air travel resumed on Friday."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/19/whunt19.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=3817

What "additional informations"?

:shrug:

The telegraph report is nothing more than a précis of the Tribune version.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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