The Cleveland Airport Mystery - Update

[Woody Box]

don't expect shocking news :P . I've just added a small, but important detail which has improved the state of the investigation. Scroll down to the last comment.


http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=323

The Delta 1989 passengers were brought to the "Federal Facilities Building" at Cleveland Airport and interviewed there by the FBI.

[philb]

1. Can you summarize what you have found out?

And what you think that implies?

[philb]

5. Is there anything new on the 4 planes that were supposedly crashed on 9/11

It appears that the aircraft used for UA flight 93 (tail number N591UA, see http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-0911.shtml) is still listed as
"valid" in the FAA Aircraft Registry, as is the aircraft used for UA175 (N612UA). See http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/defimg.asp

(select "N-number" and type in the tail number without the "N")

My understanding is that the FAA rules call for prompt removal from the registry as soon as it is ascertained that the aircraft has been destroyed.

The other two 9/11 aircraft (N334AA / AA11 and N644AA / AA77) are marked as destroyed.


So, the two AA planes #11 and 77 not only have no government record of being scheduled to fly that day, but they are on record of having been destroyed???

http://sydney.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=36354&group=webcast

Whereas the two United flights #93 (Pennsylvania), #175 (2nd Tower) are still on the registry. Cleveland????



But there are also many new questions about some "200 passengers" of
that day...

Perhaps. According to the published passenger lists (see links below) there were a total of 257 (or 266) people on board on the four 9/11 flights: 199 passengers, 32 crew members, and 26 (or 35) persons not accounted for.

Maybe this does not mean anything, maybe it does. This is just basic data mining, the kind that the US govt uses when trying to sort out potential terrorists.

The links:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html

[MercutioATC]

6. Just STOP THAT!

"My understanding is that the FAA rules call for prompt removal from the registry as soon as it is ascertained that the aircraft has been destroyed."

Dulce and I went rounds about this issue and it's definitely NOT true.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=17231

[philb]

11. why not; it would make sense to do it; I would expect it

[MercutioATC]

14. It may make sense, but that's not the way it works.

Unless the registration holder requests the FAA remove the listing from the database, the registration remains valid.

[sgsmith]

18. More FAA N number

US Airways flight 5481 crashed on takeoff Jan. 8, 2003. Tail registration N233YV. NTSB report at:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2003/AM5481/default.htm

If you put that in the FAA N number registration database, it show as assigned. The only indication that the aircraft isn't flying is the status of 'undel tri'.

[MercutioATC]

19. The only proof that a plane listed as active is still flying:

A current inspection.

If any of the 9/11 planes had an inspection listed after 9/11/01, THAT would be a smoking gun. I know it's counterintuitive, but even thow everybody knows the planes crashed, the database still lists them as flying because of a paperwork issue.

[sgsmith]

15. FAA N number database

Destroyed aircraft and their N numbers aren't necessarily removed from the database. My father crashed his airplane, and the registration number is still active in the database.

He's been dead for 12 years, and it was probably 5 years before that when he crashed the airplane. So, in 17 years that N number has been "active" after the aircraft was destroyed.

[MercutioATC]

17. THANK YOU!!!

I believe this is the first first-hand report we've had confirming this. You wouldn't believe how many people just refuse to believe it works this way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=17231

[philb]

21. Appears they are rather disorganized; do they have major budget problems?

[MercutioATC]

25. "Disorganized"? How so?

The rules are clear to anybody in the aviation community.

When you buy a preowned plane the previous owner can transfer the tail number to you or you can register for a different one (subject to availability).

If you build a plane or buy a new one, you can ask for the tail number you want and you'll get it subject to availability.

It's just like getting license plates in that way.



Anybody in the aviation community also understands that the registration, once granted, remains valid until the registration holder files to have it terminated.



Where's the problem?

[Woody Box]

7. Okay...a short chronological summary

Here's the most detailed graphic of Cleveland Airport I know of. Take a look at it while reading the timeline.

http://www.naco.faa.gov/content/naco/online/airportdiagrams/00084AD.PDF

10:10 Delta 1989 lands at Cleveland Airport and moves to the end of runway 10/28 (this runway doesn't exist anymore, obviously; the plane's position was between the Post Office and the I-X Center, which is the big black rectangle on the right). The plane is NOT evacuated soon despite rumours that it has a bomb onboard; police and firemen keep some distance.

10:45 A hitherto unidentified plane - Flight X - lands at the airport and moves to the west end, probably the West Side Cargo Ramp.

11:15 While the Delta 1989 passengers are still waiting in their plane, Flight X is evacuated with big security measures. The 200 passengers are taken to the nearby NASA Glenn Research Centre, very probably the NASA hangar also shown on the map.

12:30 After two hours, the sixty-nine Delta 1989 passengers leave their plane. Busses bring them to the Federal Facilities Building (designated in the map as GADO/FSS/NWS). They are interviewed by the FBI for three hours.

About 15:30 The Delta 1989 passengers pick up their baggage and are allowed to leave the airport, but NOT through the main terminal. They have to take a "back door".

This timeline is no speculation. It is well grounded on several press sources and reports of eyewitnesses.

The significance of the story is that we don't know the identity of "Flight X", and we don't know what happened to its 200 passengers.

The last thing we've heard of them is that they were taken to the NASA center (I repeat: probably the NASA hangar).

Do I have to be more specific what I think this implies?

[Woody Box]

9. correction

Delta 1989 parked at the end of runway 19/36, not 10/28 (that was Flight X).

[philb]

12. So which plane was X? which passengers were on it?

and How did they get there?

The Flight 11 passengers apparently were never on the Flight 11 that was followed by FAA to N Y, according to Boston Logan Airport records. What were they on? http://www.flcv.com/offcom11.html

Flight 175 seemed to rendevous with 11 and 77 and 93; are we talking Dwedney's takedown scenario? 911physics site
Operation Pearl?

Is that why 77 and 93 were messing around getting lost and flying all over the place? stalling for time?


http://www.flcv.com/offcom77.html
http://www.flcv.com/offcom93.html
http://www.flcv.com/offco175.html
(flight info at end of the files)
and what did Buffets jet have to do with all of this. It was out there monitoring some of these flights, flying along with 93, talking to Cleveland FAA controllers, etc. while the "hijackings" were going on;

[MercutioATC]

13. It wasn't "Buffet's jet". It was an ExecJet plane.

They own over 100 planes that they charter and it's common to see one of their planes over Pennsylvania. (yes, Warren Buffet does own ExecJet, but then again Warren Buffet owns a lot of things).

The ExecJet wasn't "out there monitoring some of these flights", it was flying along minding its own business. When UAL93 made it's turn to the east and descended, the ExecJet followed it to aid controllers in determining what the problem was.

[philb]

20. your version; what support do have for your version?

As I remember, this wasn't just any jet as you suggest. But its been a while since the threads on that were up.

[MercutioATC]

23. You're saying that Warren Buffet was actually on the plane?

No, I don't have any evidence that he wasn't...much the same way that I couldn't prove that the CEO of JetBlue wasn't riding on one of his planes at any given time.

ExecJet is a charter company (among other things). They have over 100 jets. The odds that Warren was riding on this one are extremely slim.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested though I don't know that it's make a difference...

[Kevin Fenton]

27. Buffet

Buffet was at a golf tournament near his home in Omaha. The tournament was held at Offutt Air Force Base, which has two golf courses, both of which are open to the public. He was seen by lots and lots of people.

The idea that he met GWB, against whom he has openly campaigned, on 9/11 is not supported by any evidence. While GWB was at Offutt that day, it appears he didn't have time to fit in a round of golf.

[philb]

28. Are you being serious; you've seen the Buffet threads I think?

Why was a private plane owned by Warren Buffet (second richest man in the world) "tracking" flight 93? "The government said it would play the cockpit voice recordings from Flight 93 and the executive jet in open court, but asked Brinkema to keep both recordings and their transcripts from dissemination outside the courtroom.An official for NetJets, a company that sells shares in private business aircraft, confirmed that the plane tracking Flight 93 belonged to the company." www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/080902/new_080902020.shtml

2001.http://memes.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1663

[MercutioATC]

36. The ExecJet was NOT "tracking" UAL93.

As for it being owned by Warren Buffet, yes, it's one of over 100 planes OWNED by Buffet and CHARTERED to other people. I work a few of them every day.

Your smoking gun is based on two misrepresentations:

1) That the ExecJet was tracking UAL93, and

2) That the ExecJet was "Buffet's jet" (well, it belonged to him but it wasn't his personal jet and he wasn't aboard).

[philb]

22. Does anyone know a URL or magazine edition number for the German magazine

that investigated the strange information at Boston Logan airport that indicated the passengers due to load on Flight 11 didn't load on the plane that the FAA followed to N.Y. It has been said that the German magazine (Spiegel?) investigated and confirmed this.

Anyone know anything about the article?

[MercutioATC]

24. I believe there was a gate change (not uncommon).

I really don't have more information than that.

[Wilms]

26. Two different gates. Two different times. Unresolved.

Very unsettling.

[philb]

29. Also 2 passengers & flight attendent called relatives that plane late leav

ing; and computer records show some boarded after the time the plane "officially" left; Yet the plane the FAA was monitoring left on time; and witnesses confirmed the passengers were waiting at the area the plane that went to N Y was not at.
Lots of very strange stuff; it doesn't appear the official passengers were on the plane that was tracked to N.Y.

[Woody Box]

32. It's in the Spiegel book

http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3423340266/qid=1131222595/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_11_2/302-4561046-0870402

Some of the Spiegel guys were "researching" at Boston Airport.
Several times they say that the plane left from Gate 26. Also, they report that the passengers didn't board the plane before 7:35 (only 10 minutes before the well documented gate departure of Flight 11 from gate 32!)

[philb]

34. One of passengers was in airport bar at that time; calling home to tell

relatives that flight 11 would be leaving late; and another passenger and Amy Sweeny also called relatives to say the plane was leaving late. One was a businessman due at a meeting in Los Angeles who called to say he would be late.

[philb]

35. What support do you have for Flight X & times other than White P.R.?

10:45 A hitherto unidentified plane - Flight X - lands at the airport and moves to the west end, probably the West Side Cargo Ramp.

11:15 While the Delta 1989 passengers are still waiting in their plane, Flight X is evacuated with big security measures. The 200 passengers are taken to the nearby NASA Glenn Research Centre, very probably the NASA hangar also shown on the map.


where does the 200 number come from?

[philb]

2. The Cleveland Plain Dealer has a forum; you might be able to

find someone there who knows additional info if you posted a thread there.

[philb]

4. Pictures don't work for me. Is it my computer?

pictures at 4A, 5A,5B, etc.
anything important there?

[Woody Box]

8. Your computer is okay

Problems with the server. But the pictures are not important, apart from a map of the airport.

Anyway, here's a link with the pictures:

http://www.fourwinds10.com/news/05-government/C-fraud/01-911/2004/05C1-06-12-04-the-cleveland-airiport-mystery.html

[spooked911]

3. Aha!

Actaully, that is somewhat interesting and makes sense.

What happened with the plane and the pentagon lagoon?

Also, weren't you working on the flight 77 flight path at one point?

[Woody Box]

10. Patience please...

The Lagoon stuff will soon get a major update. I'm suffering from a lack of time...

The flight path belongs to this matter, too.

Sorry.

[spooked911]

16. I understand. I've not had much time myself lately.

But I certainly am eager to find out if you have anything new.

[Kevin Fenton]

30. 200 passengers

Why do you insist that there were exactly 200 passengers on "Flight X"? I find that often, when a round number is used, the figure is not exact, but is rounded up or down. It seems likely that the 200 passengers allegedly mentioned by Mayor White were an approximation.

[Woody Box]

31. No problem

The 200 number is approximate, of course. Nowhere in the text I claim it has been "exactly" 200 passengers. If you look at the sources, some add an "approximate" or "about" to the number, some do not, but that doesn't mean they believe the number is dead on point. I choose the latter formulation because the context already implies that the number is approximate. When you hear "20000 dead in earthquake", you know the number is rounded.

This doesn't solve the contradiction to the 69 passengers, however. 200 is not an approximation to 69, it's on a differeent scale.

[Kevin Fenton]

33. Speech

I can't find the text of the speech by the mayor, do you have it?

[Andre II]

37. I recall

Hi Woody Box,

I recall reading your article. Great work!
I recall as well a timeline of Delta 1989 somewhere on DU. I'll try and find it.

[Woody Box]

38. Reported in local radio: 2 planes at Cleveland

I was Near Cleveland Hopkins Airport on 9-11-2001

I was working in Parma which is about 10 miles from Hopkins International..The Local Radio station did infact report that
2 planes indeed had landed unexpectedly and had been rumored to be those mentioned but that they had left Cleveland and gone on..There could be a truth to Mayor White's story..