Bush's Baghdad-Bound Plane WAS Spotted

[sleipnir]

Washington (AP)- The sighting occurred Thursday morning, just after daybreak, off the western coast of England, said White House communications director Dan Bartlett. If it had led to public disclosure of Bush's trip, the mission would have been scrapped, Bartlett said.

He said the pilot of the British Airways plane radioed the tower in London and reported the apparent sighting of Air Force One. The tower, apparently relying on phony flight-plan information filed to protect Air Force One's identity, radioed back that it was a Gulfstream Five, a much smaller plane.

Bartlett said he had left the wrong impression Thursday that the conversation had taken place between the British Airways pilot and the pilot of Air Force One, Col. Mark Tillman.

British Airways spokesman Jeff Angel said the airline has hundreds of planes in the air in the United Kingdom and around London and none of their pilots had come forward indicating they made the comments or overheard them. ``We are not going to be asking every single one of our pilots'' about the exchange, he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3456051,00.html


Interesting, I was sure the WH response to BA would come out today. Funny how they tried to spin the whole story earlier during the actual trip. I'm not sure (and neither, it seems, is BA) that this event even occured.

[htuttle]

1. Actually, British Airways seemed quite sure...

...that it never happened.

This story is just new lies to try to cover for their earlier lies.

Here's my question: If the alleged conversation took place between the London tower and a BA plane, how the hell would White House communications director Dan Bartlett have any idea that it ever happened?

Uhh...time for a better, more proactive, Bolder and more Robust lie, I think...

[booksenkatz]

3. Thank you for that question

I was sitting here reading this new spin, and that's the question that was bugging my brain, but I was afraid to ask it because I was certain that I was only one wondering about this. Bush lies and spin can leave you so confused and alone..............

Yes, yes, how would Bartlett know? Spidey sense????

[sleipnir]

5. The whole thing stinks to high heaven

My guess, Nader told Bartlett....

If nothing else, it seems that we can blame Nader tonight for everything...

Nader might even be the Mystery Pilot!!

[YNGW]

21. answer

>If the alleged conversation took place between the London tower and a BA plane, how the hell would White House communications director Dan Bartlett have any idea that it ever happened?

I'm a general aviation pilot.

One possible answer could be that the pilot of Air Force One was monitoring the same frequency the British Airways plane was using when it asked the tower. The pilot would then relay that info to whomever (Dan Bartlett).

[htuttle]

26. Okay....

...but then they would have heard the other plane's call sign, right?

So they could find out who the other pilot was?

Why don't they?

[YNGW]

29. comment

I just gave out a possiblity to his/her question. I'm really not following this because I consider it to be a non-story.

[charlie]

23. Bolder and more Robust. Heh.

Why bother, when every "correction" to what they said and did last week is heralded by the teeming clueless as steely-eyed consistency to form? Despots like Kim Jong Il can only get through violent repression what Dubya enjoys from free agents in a supposedly liberal society. I'm still expecting to see Dimbulb acclaimed as Son 'o Gawd, first Holy Protector of the Will of Heaven on Earth.

[drfemoe]

41. and if it was just after daybreak..

why did AF1 fly into "baghdad" with the lights off and shades drawn down? peek-a-boo?

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[drfemoe]

59. Where do you get this piece of info?

AF1 was on a great circle route.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[drfemoe]

63. sillier than string?

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[tom_paine]

2. Jesus Christ, the Orwellian Stalinism of the Busheviks

They're going to get away with it, too.

So, they gave a location and a time, eh? That MUST make it true.

What about the alleged radio exchange? No record, I'm guessing. What about a pilot reporting an unidentified plane...oh in the post 9/11 world that wouldn;t even occasion a glance.

Why would the Busheviks lie about something so trivial as this?

Who can tell? Why did Stalin lie about every little thing?

I suspect the answers to both questions are identical.

[joanski01]

8. The Bushivics did something

as trivial as this because somebody in Crawford had a bunch of pins made up to sell with this on them. I can't remember exactly what the person on the news said the pins said, but it was a reference to getting spotted by BA.

[DCDemo]

4. But that's not possible!

They could not have been on the Western coast of England with dawn breaking.....Bush was in Iraq when it was dark, BEFORE dawn.

They must have been on the way back....which makes this whole "scrap the trip" even more obviously a bunch of calculated bullshit.

[Frodo]

25. I'm not sure that fits.

He showed up for a turkey dinner before dawn and only spent a couple hours there?

Wouldn't it have been strange for the soldiers to be invited for turkey at 7am in the morning? (having been in the Navy I can say "not that they would have turned it down for an MRE).

[Silverhair]

39. The time thinkghas been hashed out many times already.

He was there at 5:30 in the evening, spent two and a half hours, and took off. What's the big deal about that? It is pretty easy to do.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[drfemoe]

42. a little after dawn

is 10 or 11 AM in the UK??? um . I have a great deal of trouble believing that.

[Silverhair]

44. At 59N on Nov 26 the sun rises at 9:30 AM.

So a little after dawn would be roughly 10AM. It does help if one looks at a globe, instead of flat maps.

[drfemoe]

51. wrong

I don't know what program you are using .. maybe you need to remember time ZONES
(I do know what a globe is and that the world is not flat)
. take a peek
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=136

London, England, United Kingdom
London is the capital of United Kingdom
London is capital of the country England
Sun Show full month:
Date Sunrise Sunset In south Distance
(106 km)
December 3, 2003 7:46 AM 3:54 PM 11:50 AM 147.5
December 4, 2003 7:47 AM 3:54 PM 11:51 AM 147.4
December 5, 2003 7:49 AM 3:53 PM 11:51 AM 147.4
December 6, 2003 7:50 AM 3:53 PM 11:51 AM 147.4
December 7, 2003 7:51 AM 3:52 PM 11:52 AM 147.4
December 8, 2003 7:52 AM 3:52 PM 11:52 AM 147.4
December 9, 2003 7:53 AM 3:52 PM 11:53 AM 147.

November 26, 2003 7:36 AM 3:59 PM 11:48 AM 147.6
November 27, 2003 7:37 AM 3:58 PM 11:48 AM 147.6
November 28, 2003 7:39 AM 3:58 PM 11:48 AM 147.6
November 29, 2003 7:40 AM 3:57 PM 11:49 AM 147.6
November 30, 2003 7:42 AM 3:56 PM 11:49 AM 147.5

[Silverhair]

54. London is not at 59N. London is in the South of England.

Try again. England subtends about 8 degress of arc, and at this time of year, that makes quite a difference. The reported position was off the west coast. A stretched string from Washington DC to Bdad enters England in North Scotland. Since they were off the coast of England, then that means they were earlier than "feet dry" and that is NorthWest of Scotland. That is about 59N. London is at 51.30N and would have had a sunrise time on that day of 7:36 AM.

[drfemoe]

56. 59 degrees

Edinburgh is 55/57 sunrise 8:21
can't locate a more northern location for Scotland in my list
Stockholm is 59/23 sunrise 8:21

I'm not sold on your stretched string route anyway. Why would they fly so far north?
I really don't care one way or the other. Maybe they flew to the north pole for all I fricken know.

[Silverhair]

62. Get a globe, stretch a string from W'ngton to Bdad. n/t

[grasswire]

6. how does this...

...square with the eyewitness report from a GI that Bush landed in a Gulfstream?

[grasswire]

9. odd last paragraph

"Bartlett said Bush and his senior aides were not aware of the spotting until Air Force One was on its way home from Baghdad"


So how did they find out?

[RedSock]

10. link?

cool -- do you have a link for the gulfstream sighting/landing?

[Fescue4u]

40. It could still square...Remember AF1

Is the plane that the president is in.

He could have landed in a hot air balloon and it would be designated Air Force 1.

[Hubert Flottz]

7. They knew it was Bush because of the steer horns on AF1!

And the smell of fresh Bushite!

[Beaker]

11. Don't those planes have to keep a good distance apart?

If the plane was close enough to recognize, wouldn't it set off some kind of proximity alarm? Causing the need to file a report of some kind....Was jessica lynch the other plane's co-pilot?? that would explain a lot.

[Cocoa]

12. still no confirmation

Dan Bartlett is still the source of this story, so I still consider it bogus.

[TankLV]

13. But the whole bigger picture everyone seems to be missing:

Bunkerboy bunnypants was (again) more concerned about HIM - HIS "surprise" - than "visiting the troops" or "boosting their morale" or some other equal bullshit story they try to lay on us.

He was so wrapped up in HIMSELF that the false premise of his going in the first place was that

IF PEOPLE FOUND OUT, HE WAS DAMN SURE TO TURN THE THING AROUND AND HEAD BACK HOME, SCREW THE "TROOPS"!

An honerable person would have as his higest priority the morale and concern of the troops, to hell with the "surprise" aspect.

THIS is was screams volumes about their motivations and true "concerns".

[Beaker]

15. actually...turning back could be spun as concern for the troops-

if the Iraqi Resistance got wind of it, they could try to send multiple suicide bombers to the area, causing heavy casualties

[TankLV]

16. Nice try - still don't hold water.

My statement is the TRUE reality.

Selfish.

Coward.

end of story

[htuttle]

17. As Jon Stewart astutely pointed out last night

How nice of the administration to worry about the safety of troops that they've sent INTO A WAR ZONE!

:eyes:

[drfemoe]

43. This is the point with the freeper

bashing Hillary for "demoralizing" the troops too.

*You* send them to a desert to get blown into little pieces and then worry that someone might say something to hurt their little feelings? gmafb

[sleipnir]

64. HA!

[chaumont58]

14. They would have been better off claiming Santa and his reindeers

His followers would have believed that even more, and the antichimp crowd is going to believe anything coming out of this administration

[guitar man]

18. More than one

One thing a lot of people don't realize is that there are 2 identical "Presidential" Boeing 747's decked out for use by POTUS.

"Air Force One" is not an aircraft,it is the radio call sign used by whichever aircraft the President is aboard. The aircraft only becomes Air Force One when the Pres. steps on and ceases when he steps off.


So whether or not this BA pilot actually saw "Air Force One" or not depends on a whole lot of variables.

[htuttle]

19. Which BA pilot?

There is no BA pilot.

None have come forward. Bartlett says that he knows about the conversation the pilot had with his tower, yet can't identify him. Neither can British Airways.

The whole 'pilot' story is a lie, and this new lie is to cover for their earlier lie.

Didn't happen.

[guitar man]

20. Sorry...

Should have read "the phantom" BA pilot,in case one mysteriously materializes in the future.....

[sleipnir]

22. You must mean RALPH NADER!!

He'll announce he's the mysterious pilot during his campaign kick=off speech next week!

[snippy]

24. It was essential that the White House lie about the sighting.

The White House lied about this because before Saddam bought the uranium Bush had no plans on his desk to invade the aircraft carrier since it was too far offshore for the Navy to make a large enough banner to describe the WMD we have found in Iraq that Saddam was going to give to Osama for using Iraqi hijackers on 9/11 which is why Laura dropped the dog.

There is no subject so shallow, serious, or somber that Bush will not lie about it. The only other option is not to lie.

[htuttle]

27. LOL!

I remember you posting that paragraph the other day. I love that bit about the dog at the end!

It really captures the sweaty, lying desperation of the man to avoid blame at all times!

[snippy]

30. I was struck by the fact that even in his childish poem he had to lie.

You are exactly right about "the sweaty, lying desperation of the man to avoid blame at all times!" Well put.

[karlschneider]

28. HOLD ON a minute. Just after "daybreak"??? And WHERE? What was

AF1 doing on the western coast of England? That really isn't "on the way", and why would a BA plane way off to the west be talking to the TOWER in London?..they only control flights within a few dozen miles.
:wtf:

[Frodo]

31. England is pretty much on course from Washington to Baghdad.

At least it was on my way back from Iran in '79.

And daybreak sounds pretty close if they left well before daybreak in DC (I thought that was the story). That would put them in Iraq pretty close to supper (five-six hour flight time and a three hour time difference?)

[karlschneider]

34. Okay, it isn't all that much out of the way, but I still wonder about this

If it was 'daybreak' in the UK, that would be about 0700 GMT. Assuming they didn't stop, it's (as you say) about 3K miles (5 hours ETE plus the 3 hours time diff) that's 0700 + 800, or 3:00 p.m. in Baghdad. I don't think it would have been dark at that time. Maybe they flew around for a few hours waiting for dark-thirty in Baghdad? I don't fly 747s, but I don't think even the -400s have much more than a 13 hour endurance.

Bottom line for me, is the whole thing exudes a bit of an odor. :eyes:

edit: forgot the other point - why would a BA plane over the WEST coasst of the UK be talking to the London tower? That makess absolutely no sense.

[Frodo]

36. Who SHOULD they be talking to?

I don't know where trans-Atlantic flights get their coms from, but London seems as good a guess as any.

And I'm pretty sure the photo's on sludge were of AF1 taking off into the sunset leaving Iraq. That would fit about a 3pm landing and a 2-1/2 hour stay.

I'd bet the "claimed" schedule is out there somewhere. Seems to me I saw a reporter's notes posted a few days ago.

[karlschneider]

38. Actually, I don't know, I don't fly to England, but an airport tower only

talks to aircraft within a 20 or so mile radius that are in the process of landing at the airport where the tower is physically located. If it had been a destination, the initial approach would have been handled by approach control (I'm pretty certain they use that same terminology there), but if they were enroute, at cruising altitude, there most certainly would have been multiple communications between the high altitude controllers in the UK, NORAD, probably the NSA, possibly the CIA and others obviously including the British civil -and- military authorities. I can say with some confidence that not even AF1 has the ability (or at least unlimited clearance) to go barging through another country's airspace without some cooperation and communication from local controllers...however,

The west coast of the UK is a couple hundred miles west of London. A British Airways plane would have had no reason to be in contact with the local tower there. Maybe somebody misidentified the ARTCC facility, given the abysmal ignorance of current media, I wouldn't find that incredible, and I don't necessarily think there is some grand conspiracy at work here, but the details just don't match what I do know as factual.

Was it dark at 3 pm local in Baghdad? They must have some wicked kind of daylight denying time if it was...all the reports were that it was pitch dark, the lights on AF1 were all turned off and the windows were covered. That doesn't seem to be a very effective measure in mid-afternoon.

Whatever...

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[drfemoe]

45. I want some of our UK readers to clarify that

DAWN is at 10 AM in the UK (this time of year) . PLEASE HELP ME.

[Silverhair]

50. Remember England is rather stretched out North to South.

Just looking at the globe it looks like it covers about 8 degrees, and at this time of year that will make a large difference in sunrise times when you are already pretty far north. My data is for 59N, (A reasonable guess. The article says they were off the West Coast, and from the string I stretched on a globe that comes out to NorthWest of Scotland.)and I have since plugged the location into a program that I have and it gets a sunrise of 9:30. If I am off by some on the latitude, it will still be in the neighborhood.

[karlschneider]

46. Mea culpa. I'm not a tinfoiler and I do know the earth is (kinda) round..

I was too lazy to dig out my chart bag. Yes, the GC route would put them over middle England (not quite as far as 59N, though) about local sunrise.

Now I love G. W. Bush. He is a true hero.

[Silverhair]

48. LOL. OK, I didn't mean for it go that far.

I got my chart by holding a string on a globe. Obviously it wasn't going to be exactly on the correct flight lanes, but close enough for an estimation. Also, he was off the West coast so I guessed him to be off Northern Scotland.

I react rather strongly to the tinfoil hat types because all of the silliness they do tend to discredit us. Then when we do find a real discrepancy, it is more likely to be dismissed.

Boy who cries wolf type of thing.

[karlschneider]

49. No offense taken! And I know what you mean. I mostly avoid the CTers

especially where aviation is concerned, but I admit that the preponderance of "oddities" and "coincidences" not to mention the obvious spin on what passes for news has got my usual cynicism ratcheted up a few notches.
:eyes: ;-)

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. Sunrise for Stornoway on Wednesday

(closest town to 59N off west coast) 8:47am. Probably about 8:35 last Thursday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/5day.shtml?id=2143

If that is the realistic position for the plane, it's annoying AP reports it as England, not Scotland.

There are a couple of air traffic control centres for the UK (one is new, not sure which is operating at the moment) both fairly near to London (near in American terms, anyway), so their other mistake may just be calling the 'tower'.

[Silverhair]

55. We would need more information to be able to discuss it

intelligently, and I doubt we will ever have that. You do see that a time of 7AM is not realistic. And I don't know the flight time or flight path to Bdad. A little after dawn, with a dawn time of 8:30 is still in the time frame. At this time of year, even a small amount of North/South difference, in those latitudes can make a large difference in sunrise times. One isn't that far from the Artic Circle there.

[gbwarming]

60. The great circle route from DC to Baghdad overflies all of eastern Europe

Not very secret. I've no idea how they usually route military traffic but it seems like a secret flight might like to fly to Gibralter and then toward Turkey supported by tankers if necessary.


Here's a great circle route plotter
try this huge link:
http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=kdca-orbs&RANGE=&PATH-COLOR=&PATH-UNITS=mi&SPEED-GROUND=500&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=&MAP-STYLE=

or this short one and then
http://gc.kls2.com/
Put the two airport identifiers into the 'paths' box
kdca-orbs

[Silverhair]

65. The Med has lots of air traffic too.

All they would need to do is to have filed a flight plan under a cover name. The ATC guys could care less. All they see is a transponder squawk showing where it is supposed to be, and they are off to the next plane to check.

At a high flight level, nobody is going to see from the ground. Usually the flight paths keep planes miles apart so they could reasonably expect not to be seen.

[sfecap]

69. Your string is not correct...

Routes do indeed follow great circle routes. However, trans Atlantic routes are known as the Organized Track System. The OTS changes on a daily basis depending of time of day and weather/wind data. Generally speaking, the routes are active Eastbound in the evenings when most of the trans Atlantic traffic is moving from the US to European destinations. Reaching the UK west coast at 60 North is not unusual, but for a flight proceeding to the ME, it would be. Those flight are usually routed on the more southernly tracks. For flights crossing at odd hours, the flights fly random routes, based on lat/long points.

If AF1 traveled eastbound leaving the US in the late afternoon, early evening, it would be about dawn when it reached the UK.

If the flight was sighted over the west coast of the UK, the BA pilot would NOT have been talking to the London ATC tower. That is patently ridiculous. Theere are a number of controlling ATC facilities for the west coast of the UK, but gnerally speaking, the controlling agency for trans Atlantic flights crossing the coast is Shanwick Oceanic control, (located in Prestwick, Scotland)then various facilities in Scotland, then London control. BA would never be talking to London "tower" under these circumstances...that ststement is absurd.

[Silverhair]

70. OK, but my point about the timing still holds.

There were several tinfoil hatters trying to maintain that dawn in the UK area would throw the flight times all off. So I used the best information at hand to me, who is not a specialist in the field, to arrive at a fair approximation. Given that limitation, I think I did rather well.

I am greatly annoyed by the CTists who grasp at the thinnest of straws in their eagerness to find weakness in Bush. He certainly has plenty of them, but we waste energy and hurt our credibility by silly theories like this one. By putting foth, against extremely strong evidence, a theory that the trip to Bdad was all a lie and was staged somewhere, causes us to get laughed at. It exposes us to ridicule. And you do know that DU has become a stronger voice so that the RW's monitor this site looking for jewels to use against us.

I can just see some RW paper having a feature article, "Leftist believe Bush trip was faked in Nevada." So everyone has a good laugh at Chicken Little. Then one day when Chicken Little really does find something, nobody believes him because everybody knows how he isn't all there.

So Bush went there. Big deal. It ain't hard to do.

[sfecap]

71. You did fine...

Bush went to Bagdhad. Big deal.

It wasn't staged. And your time line is pretty accurate. If he left the US in the late afternoon, he would reack the UK at about dawn, and Bagdhad after sunset.

Much ado about nothing, IMO. :-)

[Beaker]

57. Dawn comes a lot earlier at 30,000 feet...

than it does on the ground.

[Silverhair]

68. Roughly 15-20 minutes difference. Still in the same time

frame. And this was after dawn.

Besides, why go to all the trouble of faking something, when it is so easy for him to get on a plane, nap while the pilots fly, spend a couple of hours for the cameras, get back on the plane and nap again till he's back. It isn't an herculean thing to relax on AF1. What's the big deal with him going there? It is no more difficult than if he had gone anywhere else, including to Crawford.

[Unknown Known]

33. Not surprising that *bushes' poodle ordered this story rewritten

Yaaaawwwwwnnnnnnnnnnn:eyes:

[arewethereyet]

35. and the net effect is nothing from where I sit

am I missing something ?

[Kurovski]

53. If a pilot saw AF1, then would it not be possible that

passengers also saw it? If passengers saw it could they not have called someone on the ground about the citing? were they flying in the dark?

A slim chance, perhaps, butI think that would have been reason enough to abort the mission.

[Silverhair]

58. Depends on the angle of the sighting.

You don't have a lot of view out those tiny windows. The pilots can see a lot more. We would have to know the relative positions to be able to intelligently discuss this aspect.

[alcuno]

66. BA said earlier that they had a policy for pilots to report such events

to British Airways. Funny that no one has yet to come forward, if in fact it's company policy.