|
|
9/11 Planes
Were Not Flown For One Year Before Attacks |
|
|
|
U.S. BTS: Last Known Flights Of 9/11 Planes Took Place Nine Months
Before 9/11; None For AA 77
What Were They Doing With These Planes For The Year
Prior To 9/11?
911Blogger.com, Submitted by
Aidan Monaghan on Mon, 06/22/2009
According to a Freedom of
Information Act reply from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics,
the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved
in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 took place in December,
2000, nine months before the attacks. No pre-9/11 flight information is
available for these planes during 2001.
No pre-9/11 final flight information was provided for American
Airlines flight 77 (N644AA).
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations requires carriers to provide on-time
data for their commercial aircraft on a monthly basis.
Title 14 § 234.4 Reporting of on-time performance.
(a) Each reporting carrier shall file BTS Form 234 “On-Time Flight
Performance Report” with the Office of Airline Information on a monthly
basis ... and shall contain the following information:
(1) Carrier and flight number.
(2) Aircraft tail number.
(3) Origin and Destination airport codes.
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title14/14-4.0.1.1.21.html
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
UPDATE: U.S. BTS FOIA Records Show
Where 9/11 Planes Left From On 9/10
According to a Freedom of Information Act
reply from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), the last
known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 took place in December, 2000,
nine months before the attacks, while no pre-9/11 final flight
information was provided for American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA).
It has been discovered where three of the
four aircraft took off from the day before 9/11...
AA 11 departs San Francisco (SFO): AA
09/10/2001 0198 (flight number) N334AA (tail number) BOS (destination)
22:04 (wheels-off time)
UA 175 departs San Francisco (SFO): UA
09/10/2001 0170 (flight number) N612UA (tail number) BOS (destination)
13:44 (wheels-off time)
UA 93 departs San Francisco (SFO): UA
09/10/2001 0078 (flight number) N591UA (tail number) EWR (destination)
23:15 (wheels-off time)
http://www.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatistics/src/dstat/OntimeSummaryDe...
|
|
|
ED NOTE: These planes were also not taken out
of service for nearly four years after 9/11.
Two
9/11 Airliners, Flight 93 and 175, Were Only Just Recently Taken Off The
FAA
'Active' List (2005)
Rense.com, By Greg Szymanski 11-26-05
FAA records for four years listed both 9/11 United
jetliners as still on the 'active' list. Now planes only 'deregistered'
in September after snoopy researchers questioned FAA officials a month
earlier.
Two of the 9/11 airliners were never 'deregistered'
and remained on the 'active' flight list until Sept. 28. 2005, the
classification officially changing only a month after two inquisitive
flight researchers made repeated calls to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), inquiring about the strange irregularity.
The two planes in question were Flight 93 and Flight
175, both owned and operated by United Airlines and, according to the
official story, both destroyed on 9/11, one in Shanksville, Penn., and
the other crashing into the South Tower of the WTC.
Usually a normal procedure after an airliner is
destroyed, why it took United more than four years to 'deregister' the
airplanes and fill out the official FAA paperwork remains a mystery and
never has been fully explained by the FAA, United or the government.
In fact, in stark contrast, a check of FAA records
shows the two other American Airline flights, Flight 11 and 77, both
were 'deregistered' and classified as 'destroyed' only months after 9/11
on Jan. 14, 2002.
Why the late filing by United?
"My brother and I both wrote the FAA in August about
this situation and asked why the planes were not deregistered. The FAA
said that an owner does not need to deregister an aircraft," said one of
the researchers named Roger, who preferred only to use his first name.
"Ironically, a couple of months after I wrote the FAA, the planes were
deregistered. What's up with that?
"Although the planes are deregistered, they are not
listed as cause destroyed but rather as cause cancelled. The American
airplanes are clearly listed as cause destroyed but not so the United
planes.
"There is a guy who was saying on a web posting that
he knew one of the United planes was still in service in Chicago. I
know nothing of how he would know this or who he was but I think he was
the same guy who brought this stuff to our attention and he's clearly
right about the planes still being registered.
"Two planes destroyed and two planes still flying?
Are you familiar with the Cleveland airport mystery? So did Flight 93
land at Cleveland with 200 passengers on board?"
A recent check of FAA records proves the flight
researcher's statements correct as Flight 93 identified as N591UA and
Flight 175 as N612UA, both were taken off the active FAA list in
September with a reason given as 'cancelled' not 'destroyed.'
The FAA again was contacted this week, giving the
same answers given to the two researchers back in August regarding the
late deregistration. And in regards to listing both United flights as
'cancelled not destroyed,' FAA officials also gave no further
explanation.
Besides the FAA deregistration issue, solid evidence
has also come forward that two of the 9/11 flights, Flight 11 and 77,
never even existed at all, according to Bureau of Traffic Safety (BTS)
records.
According to BTS statistics, both 11 and 77
officially never took-off on 9/11. The meticulous data kept on every
airliner taking-off at every airport in the country also showed no
elapsed run-way time, wheels-off time and taxi-out time, not to mention
several other categories left blank on 9/11 concerning the two flights.
Although Flights 11 and 77 have the above data
meticulously logged on 9/10, it was suspiciously absent on 9/11, even
when every other plane that took of that day had been recorded and
logged by the BTS.
Why the discrepancy? No one has ever given an
official explanation for the BTS missing flight data, even though it is
well known that airports are extremely concerned about recording
accurate BTS data for each and every flight in and out of its airport
for liability purposes.
More importantly critics contend this is another
clear indication Flight 11 and 77 were only 'phantom flights," adding
even further doubt to the credibility of the official government story
concerning 9/11.
Besides the FAA and BTS irregularities, the official
flight lists from all four flights have been a serious bone of
contention for 9/11 critics, who call attention to the glaring errors
and conflicting passenger numbers on many of the flight lists released,
many coming from unverified sources.
On Flight 11, for example, American Airlines released
two different lists containing 77 and 75 names the day after 9/11, but
the Washington Post published 89 names the same day while the Boston
Daily published 89 names with conflicting names, however. Remember,
complicating matters worse, Fox News all along was still claiming that
only 81 names were confirmed a week later.
Through out the years, not only have the numbers
conflicted but so have the names on the lists. Gerald Holmgren, a 9/11
researcher who has spent much time and effort researching the flight
irregularities found one of the most glaring errors never explained by
the airlines or the government.
Holmgren, whose compilation of 9/11 flight data can
be found at
http://indymedia.all2all.org/news/2004/05/84711.php,
uncovered that four of the alleged passengers on American Airlines
Flight 11 with the last names of Ward, Weems, Roux and Jalbert also
mysteriously and unexplainable were also listed as passengers on Flight
175 that struck the South Tower.
Holmgren in his 2004 article had this to say:
"What a mess! This crime - the murder of
approximately 3000 people, and the excuse for two wars and alarming
attacks on civil liberties - and presumably more to come - is supposed
to have been properly investigated and documented? Why should we be
expected to believe who the hijackers were, when the spin doctors can't
even do a credible fabrication job of a list of innocent victims?
"It's previously been demanded by many skeptics that
we need to see a verifiable official passenger list which actually
contains the names of the alleged hijackers. We can now take the
implications of that further and point to the absence of any passenger
list documentation for AA11 which stands up to scrutiny as a credible
document. We have nothing which could support the existence of any of
the alleged passengers on the alleged flight."
|
|
|
The big question is, how do you reconcile
the two main stories above? What were they doing to the planes prior to
9/11 and then why were they not taken out of service by the FAA until
years later? As the commercial with
the world's most interesting man says, "Stay thirsty my friends." |
|
|
| |
|
