Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The pilots and the planes

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-02-04 09:07 PM
Original message
The pilots and the planes
These are the Social Security Death Index Search Results
for the aviators of the four planes of September 11, 2001.
The following results were obtained on 3/12/2004 by accessing this site
http://ssdi.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi/ssd...
and typing in the names of the aviators together with the month (September) and the year (2001).
The entries below have been edited slightly.

I have been given to understand that:
Verified = Report verified with a family member or someone acting on behalf of a family member.
Proof = Death Certificate Observed.

******** ********

FLIGHT 11
John Alexander Ogonowski AGE 52
Name: Birth: Death: Last Residence: SSN card issued in:
BRUCE E OGONOWSKI : 28 Feb 1944 : 12 Sep 2001 : Proof : California

Thomas Francis McGuinness Jr AGE 42
Name : Birth : Death :SSN card issued in:
ALICE A MCGUINNESS : 03 Feb 193 : 04 Sep 2001 : Verified : New York
JOHN P MCGUINNESS : 25 Feb 1918 : 01 Sep 2001 : Verified : Ohio

******** ********

FLIGHT 77
Charles Frank Burlingame III AGE 51
Name : Birth : Death : SSN card issued in:
CHARLES F BURLINGAME : 12 Sep 1949: 11 Sep 2001: Verified: District of Columbia

David Michael Charlebois AGE 39
Name: Birth: Death: Last Residence: SSN card issued in:
Last Name CHARLEBOIS
Death Year 2001 Scanned
Death Month 09 Scanned
NOTHING FOUND

******** ********

FLIGHT 93
Jason Matthew Dahl AGE 43
Since there were eighteen (18) entries, here are the males and below that,
the one and only (DAHL) death that actually occurred on September 11, 2001.
Name : Birth : Death : SSN card issued in:
GEORGE G DAHL : 22 Jun 1919 : 15 Sep 2001 : Verified : Massachusetts
CRETE M DAHL : 03 Aug 1896 : 15 Sep 2001 : Verified : New York
OLIVER B DAHL : 22 Oct 1918 : 07 Sep 2001 : Verified : Minnesota
DAVID J DAHL : 31 Oct 1941 : 26 Sep 2001 : Proof : Minnesota
SIGFRED T DAHL: 24 Feb 1939 : 09 Sep 2001 : Verified : Washington
NORMAN K DAHL : 17 Jun 1928 : 19 Sep 2001 : Verified : North Dakota
JEFFREY P DAHL: 19 Dec 1951 : 26 Sep 2001 : Proof : Oregon
CHARLES M DAHL: 17 Jan 1929 : 16 Sep 2001 : Verified : California
PEARL W DAHL : 14 Sep 1925 : 11 Sep 2001 : Verified : Indiana

Leroy Wilton Homer Jr AGE 36
Name : Birth : Death : Issued in:
HERBERT W HOMER: 05 Feb 1953 : 11 Sep 2001 : Proof : Massachusetts
EDITH D HOMER : 27 Feb 1918 : 01 Sep 2001 : Verified : New York
GLENN B HOMER : 13 Feb 1926 : 24 Sep 2001 : Proof : Pennsylvania

******** ********

FLIGHT 175
Victor John Saracini AGE 51
Name : Birth : Death: : SSN card issued in:
VICTOR J SARACINI : 29 Aug 1950: 11 Sep 2001 : New Jersey

Michael Robert Horrocks AGE 38
Name : Birth : Death : SSN card issued in:
MICHAEL R HORROCKS : 24 Mar 1963 : 11 Sep 2001 : Proof : Pennsylvania

******** ********

Let us now turn our attention to the planes that these aviators were flying.

Here is the N-number page on
the FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION DATABASE.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNum_inquiry.asp
These are the results obtained by typing in the N-mumbers and Serial numbers
for the four planes of September 11, 2001.


N 334AA Flight 11 Serial 22332 Issued 1/6/2000 Registration: Cancelled 1/14/2002
N 644AA Flight 77 Serial 24602 Issued 5/8/1991 Registration: Cancelled 1/14/2002
N 591UA Flight 93 Serial 28142 Issued 7/1/1996 Registration: Valid
N 612UA Flight 175 Serial 21873 Issued 1/18/1984 Registration: Valid
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm

Sec. 47.41 - Duration and return of Certificate.
(a) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA under this subpart is effective, unless suspended or revoked, UNTIL THE DATE UPON WHICH --
(2) The registration is canceled at the written request of the holder of the certificate;
(3) THE AIRCRAFT IS TOTALLY DESTROYED OR SCRAPPED;
(b) The Certificate of Aircraft Registration, with the reverse side completed, must be returned to the FAA Aircraft Registry --
(3) Upon the termination of the registration, by the holder of the Certificate of Aircraft Registration in all other cases mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section.
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part47-41-FAR.shtml

******** ********

CONCLUSION
When we put the results of the SSDI and the FAA database together,
this is what we have.

FLIGHT 11
John Alexander Ogonowski, pilot, apparently STILL ALIVE.
Thomas Francis McGuinness Jr, copilot, apparently STILL ALIVE.
N 334AA Serial 22332
Registration: Cancelled/ plane destroyed on 1/14/2002

FLIGHT 77
Charles Frank Burlingame, pilot, DECEASED as of September 11, 2001.
David Michael Charlebois, copilot, apparently STILL ALIVE.
N 644AA Serial 24602
Registration: Cancelled/ plane destroyed on 1/14/2002

FLIGHT 93
Jason Matthew Dahl, pilot, apparently STILL ALIVE.
Leroy Wilton Homer Jr, copilot, apparently STILL ALIVE.
N 591UA Serial 28142
Registration: Valid/ PLANE STILL ABLE TO FLY.

FLIGHT 175
Victor Saracini, pilot, DECEASED as of September 11, 2001
Michael Horrocks, copilot, DECEASED as of September 11, 2001
N 612UA Serial 21873
Registration: Valid/ PLANE STILL ABLE TO FLY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-04 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. One small hole in your theory:
You're using the accuracy of record-keeping systems to attempt to prove that dead people are still alive and crashed aircraft flightworthy.

Which is more likely, that the records are in error or that the people/planes are still alive/flying?

If the government did, in fact, engineer some vast conspiracy and substitute aircraft, why wouldn't they make the records reflect the "official story"?

If you'll notice, American had both of their aircraft's registrations cancelled. United did not. Isn't is more likely that American just followed through with the paperwork and United didn't?

What you've compiled is an excellent testimony to the innacuracy of Social Security and FAA recordkeeping. I don't see how it's anything more than that, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-04 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Show me the bodies
and the debris.

And I now CANNOT accept some piece of paper that says whatever its author wants it say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
41. I think you might find this picture interesting
I found it about a week ago and I don't recall ever seeing this picture before.


It is known that debris from the aircraft traveled completely through the structure. For example, a landing gear from the aircraft that impacted WTC 2 was found to have crashed through the roof of a building located six blocks to the north, and one of the jet engines was found at the corner of Murray and Church Streets. The extent to which debris scattered throughout the impact floors is also evidenced by photographs of the fireballs that occurred as the aircraft struck the building (Figure 2-28). Figure 2-29 shows a portion of the fuselage of the aircraft, lying on the roof of WTC 5.

http://serendipity.911review.org/wot/wtc_ch2/fig-2-29.j...

Figure 2-29 A portion of the fuselage of United Airlines Flight 175 on the roof of WTC 5. (for some reason I can't get the picture to come up but the link will take you right to it).



What I find odd about his picture, is that Flight 175 went through a massive skyscraper and apparently a fair bit of debris came out the other end. Now can someone explain to me why there wasn't hardly any debris from the plane that flew into the Pentagon? I would assume that since the Pentagon was supposedly built to be an impenetrable fortress that most of the plane would have ended up squished in front of the building.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. lared: Please answer this person's query about FL 77
lared posted a theory about this recently, but I can't find it right now.

Maybe he'll see this and give you the benefit of his analysis of how a B757 was able to perform as magically when it crashed, as it did when "Amazin" Hanni was supposedly at the controls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-04 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #41
47. Abe requested I answer this
Edited on Fri May-28-04 12:08 PM by LARED
What I find odd about his picture, is that Flight 175 went through a massive skyscraper and apparently a fair bit of debris came out the other end. Now can someone explain to me why there wasn't hardly any debris from the plane that flew into the Pentagon? I would assume that since the Pentagon was supposedly built to be an impenetrable fortress that most of the plane would have ended up squished in front of the building.

The first issue is a question. Who said the Pentagon was built to be an impenetrable fort?

But, if you mean that the section attacked was refurbished to be blast resistant then we are on the same page. The OUTSIDE wall was reinforced, the windows were blast resistant. That does not translate into flight 77 squishing into the building facade. The jet impacting the wall is not a blast, it is an impact of massive proportions.

An analogy would be bullet proof vest that police wear. There are not REALLY bulletproof. They will stop many types of rounds, but not all of them. You will never find a policeman that thinks his or her bulletproof vest will stop a 50 caliber rifle.

The Pentagon is the same issue. It was designed to mitigate damage and protect people from bombs like the one at the Murrah building. It was never going to stop a large commercial jet traveling at over 200 MPH.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-04 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
34. One BIG hole
in your theory.

MercutioATC asks:
If the government did, in fact, engineer some vast conspiracy and substitute aircraft, why wouldn't they make the records reflect the "official story"?

ANSWER:
Why should they care?

05/18/03: (SFGate.com) The Department of Defense, already infamous for spending $640 for a toilet seat, once again finds itself under intense scrutiny, only this time because it couldn't account for more than a trillion dollars in financial transactions, not to mention dozens of tanks, missiles and planes.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3435.ht...

If they have already managed to get away with "misplacing" 56
(yes FIFTY-SIX) military aircraft,
then what is a measly airliner here or there?

As for the trillion dollars.....
What the hell does one trillion dollars look like?
http://www.whereisthemoney.org /
What kind of mattresses do these guys have?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #34
38. This still simply a bookkeeping issue.
United hasn't filed the paperwork. American did. It's as simple as that.

Those planes are in pieces...they're not flying around anywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-04 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
2. Again???????
Why do you continue to ignore the most likely reason someone is not on the SSDI. No one told SS. The FACT that if you are missing from the SSDI list does not in any way mean you are alive has been pointed out more than once; yet you continue to blather on as if it material.

http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/ssdi/index.html#reasons

    The SSDI does not include death records for everyone who has been issued a Social Security Number (card). Common reasons for exclusion include the following:

    The death was not reported to the Social Security Administration (SSA).
    The death occurred before the Death Master File was maintained in a computer database. About 98 percent of the deaths in this database occurred between 1962 and the present.
    The person did not participate in the Social Security program.
    Survivor death benefits were (are) being paid to dependents or spouse.
    A recent death may not be indexed yet.
    Human error. (Before you give up, read the section titled "Missing Entries in the SSDI.")
    If you do not find a listing in the SSDI, it does not mean the person is still living, or that the Social Security Administration (SSA) has no records on the deceased. See "Contacting the SSA for Information" for instructions on requesting information on individuals not in the SSDI.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-04 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. What if
the deceased is still making SS payments?
Does that count as being alive?

Or does that simply mean that their employer never checks to see who has actually punched the clock and who hasn't done so for the last two and a half years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-04 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Ok, I'll bite
What are you talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-04 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. This is not evidence for the existence of the planes.
Here is the N-number page on
the FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION DATABASE.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNum_inquiry.asp
These are the results obtained by typing in the N-mumbers and Serial numbers
for the four planes of September 11, 2001.


N 334AA Flight 11 Serial 22332 Issued 1/6/2000 Registration: Cancelled 1/14/2002
N 644AA Flight 77 Serial 24602 Issued 5/8/1991 Registration: Cancelled 1/14/2002
N 591UA Flight 93 Serial 28142 Issued 7/1/1996 Registration: Valid
N 612UA Flight 175 Serial 21873 Issued 1/18/1984 Registration: Valid
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm

Sec. 47.41 - Duration and return of Certificate.
(a) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA under this subpart is effective, unless suspended or revoked, UNTIL THE DATE UPON WHICH --
(2) The registration is canceled at the written request of the holder of the certificate;
(3) THE AIRCRAFT IS TOTALLY DESTROYED OR SCRAPPED;
(b) The Certificate of Aircraft Registration, with the reverse side completed, must be returned to the FAA Aircraft Registry --
(3) Upon the termination of the registration, by the holder of the Certificate of Aircraft Registration in all other cases mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section.
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part47-41-FAR.shtml


This is only evidence for the existence of the paperwork.

On September 11, 2001, all the above registrations became ineffective. Why? Because of item (a)(3) of Sec. 47.41.

How do I know that the aircraft were destroyed? Because the FAA says so.

http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/D_0912_N.txt

Do over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-04 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. One page vs FOUR pages
Do we still support majority rule?

I have a few questions about the page you linked to.
(The page that was created during the Valiant Guardian exercises.)
http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/D_0912_N.txt
Maybe you can help me out.

What day and what time did these events occur?
Shh -- no cheating -- go with the linked page.

Are any other agencies looking into the matters?
Shh -- no calling out -- just tell me what the page says.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-04 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Can't help it - going to cheat
http://www.ctnow.com/news/local/hc-bradtruck0403.artapr...

Jet Fuel Cleanup Efforts Continue At Bradley
April 3, 2004
By PAUL MARKS, Courant Staff Writer

WINDSOR LOCKS -- State environmental workers struggled to clean up about 100 gallons of jet fuel that spilled from the damaged wing tank of a commuter plane that was struck Thursday night (April 1, 2004) by a truck at Bradley International Airport.

The accident, which occurred on a taxiway near Terminal A minutes after the US Airways Express plane had landed, was still being investigated by the Federal Aviation Administration Friday evening.

....;"The fire department responded promptly" after the 6:45 p.m. accident and took initial steps to contain the kerosene-based fuel, Fritz said. "The situation was problematic because of the rainfall. A good amount washed into storm drains that lead to a tributary of the Farmington River."


http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/A_0402_N.txt

********************************************************************************
** Report created 4/2/2004 Record 1 **
********************************************************************************

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 149CJ Make/Model: B190 Description: 1900 (C-12J)
Date: 04/01/2004 Time: 2335

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: WINDSOR LOCKS State: CT Country: US

DESCRIPTION
COLGAN, CJC4997, N149CJ, BEECH 1900 ACFT, LANDED AT BRADLEY RUNWAY 06 AND
WHILE IN A NON-MOVEMENT AREA, COLLIDED WITH A FUEL TRUCK, NO INJURIES WERE
REPORTED, DAMAGE TO THE ACFT WAS TO THE LEFT ENGINE, WINDSOR LOCKS, CT

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 2 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 15 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

WEATHER: 1835Z BKN010 OVC015 5SM TWR VSBY2SM RA BR 07/06 A2972



OTHER DATA
Activity: Business Phase: Taxi Operation: Air Taxi (Commuter)

Departed: SYRACUSE, NY Dep Date: 04/01/2004 Dep. Time:
Destination: WINDSOR LOCKS, CT Flt Plan: IFR Wx Briefing: U
Last Radio Cont: BDL GROUND CONTROL
Last Clearance: TAXI TO RAMP

FAA FSDO: WINDSOR LOCKS, CT (NE03) Entry date: 04/02/2004


Any more questions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-04 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Here is another question
since you did not answer the first two despite having the document at your fingertips.

How come there is so very much detail about this one itsy bitsy little accident
and there is next to nothing about those FOUR great big life-altering accidents?

How come
the FAA gets the facts so quickly and reports them so clearly
when the FBI is NOT involved?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-04 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Here is another answer
since I did answer your first two questions.

I do hate answering questions to which the questioner already knows the answer. Therefore, I found the recent report of an airplane accident. The plane wrecked at 6:45 pm, but the report said 11:25 pm. Just as the reports on the 9/11 attacks happened earlier in the morning than the time given in the FAA report.

This "event time" is obviously a time of the data being entered into the system, not the time of the actual accident. Nothing unusual, and no room for your darkweaving.

Unless the CT accident is a part of the plot too...I don't think you'd assert that, though.

How come there is so very much detail about this one itsy bitsy little accident
and there is next to nothing about those FOUR great big life-altering accidents?


You're hyping the difference in amount of information between the reports. There's not that much more information in the more recent report.

How come
the FAA gets the facts so quickly and reports them so clearly
when the FBI is NOT involved?


The time lag is just about the same, and the information isn't that much more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-04 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #19
29. You did NOT answer
my first two questions.

I distinctly remember asking you to tell us the time at which the FAA initial report
WHICH YOU PROVIDED
gave as the time at which the crashes occurred.
You then went on to demonstrate a classic Number Four.

Boloboffin says:
I do hate answering questions to which the questioner already knows the answer. Therefore, I found the recent report of an airplane accident. The plane wrecked at 6:45 pm, but the report said 11:25 pm. Just as the reports on the 9/11 attacks happened earlier in the morning than the time given in the FAA report.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
http://www.universalway.org/Foreign/truthsuppression.ht...

Since you are not forthcoming, allow me to cut and paste the pertinent information from the page that you, Boloboffin, provided as rebuttal.

09/25/2001 Preliminary Accident/Incident Data Record 1 ****
A. Type: A Mid Air: N Missing: N Entry date: 09/12/2001
From: EASTERN REGION OPERATIONS CENTER
B. Reg. No.: 334AA M/M: B767 Desc: B-767
D. Location. City: NEW YORK State: NY Country: US
E. Event Date: 09/11/2001 Time: 1250

09/25/2001 Preliminary Accident/Incident Data Record 2 ****
A. Type: A Mid Air: N Missing: N Entry date: 09/12/2001
From: EASTERN REGION OPERATIONS CENTER
B. Reg. No.: 591UA M/M: B757 Desc: B-757
D. Location. City: BUCKSTOWN State: PA Country: US
E. Event Date: 09/11/2001 Time: 1400

09/25/2001 Preliminary Accident/Incident Data Record 3 ****
A. Type: A Mid Air: N Missing: N Entry date: 09/12/2001
From: EASTERN REGION OPERATIONS CENTER
B. Reg. No.: 612UA M/M: B767 Desc: B-767
D. Location. City: NEW YORK State: NY Country: US
E. Event Date: 09/11/2001 Time: 1250

09/25/2001 Preliminary Accident/Incident Data Record 4 ****
A. Type: A Mid Air: N Missing: N Entry date: 09/12/2001
From: EASTERN REGION OPERATIONS CENTER
B. Reg. No.: 644AA M/M: B757 Desc: B-757
D. Location. City: WASHINGTON State: DC Country: US
E. Event Date: 09/11/2001 Time: 1250
http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/D_0912_N.txt

Please correct me if I am wrong.
There are four preliminary reports.
The four reports were filed on September 25, 2001.
The first data pertaining to these reports was entered on September 12, 2001.
All the accidents occurred on September 11, 2001.
Flight 11 (334AA) crashed in New York city, NY at 1250.
Flight 93 (591UA) crashed near Buckstown Pennsylvania at 1400.
Flight 175 (612UA) cashed in New York city, NY at 1250.
Flight 77 (644AA) crashed in Washington DC at 1250.
The times are given in military time.
Here is an explanation of the 24 hour clock and also a conversion sheet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-hour_clock

Now,remind me,
what exactly was this page supposed to demonstrate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeadBroke Donating Member (173 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-04 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
4. No words ....
.... to express how badly wrong DulceDecorum is with his theory.

My brother before his death owned several very badly used and abused airplanes that flew routes between hot and dusty South American cities. Many of his planes had to be stripped of parts to keep the ancient fleet - some planes were used in the Berlin airlift - aflight. The family still has paperwork, including registrations and other official documents from airplanes stripped down to bare bones long long ago. A "valid" registration has no significance whatsoever, it means nothing.

It is obvious DeluceDecorum has had no personal experiences with Social Security and has no knowledge of how the system works or what meanings can be applied to the Social Security Administration's terms and conditions or their policies and procedures. I can personally attest, from the experiences of my own brother's death and from other family members that DeluceDecorum's theory will never hold water. It has no value whatsoever.

By the way - I would like to add that from my own experiences knowing several airplane fleet owners it is not at all unusual to keep registrations. It is a way of honoring those who lost their lives in crashes - they are still up there flying so to speak, much like the US Navy keeping the Arizona active.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-04 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. Keep registrations?
I dunno,
maybe I'll try keeping the registration of the rustheap car valid
- after I win the lottery and find some vehicle inspector who fancies my bod.

DeadBroke,
if it is not too personal a question,
exactly WHAT was your dearly departed brother transporting on those planes
and did he ever land in Mena, Arkansas?

DeadBroke says:
A "valid" registration has no significance whatsoever, it means nothing.

So much for the Article 12 and Article 29 of the
CHICAGO CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION
(1994) 15 U.N.T.S. 295
http://www.dal.ca/~wwwlaw/kindred.intllaw/ChicagoCIA.ht...
Since THAT is not in effect, who needs the FAA?

Well well.
Who knew?
Dodson Aviation certainly didn't.

In 1998, ECOMOG identified a plane, registration number N71RD, owned by a South African company, Dodson Aviation Maintenance and Spare Parts, as having carried weapons to Robertsfield in September of that year. The plane is a Gulfstream 14-seater business jet that cannot be used for arms transport, but there are other relevant connections. Fred Rindel was the owner of Dodson. The company was closed on 31 December 1998, but during the period under investigation, the plane was leased to, and operated by, Greater Holdings (Liberia) Ltd., a company with gold and diamond concessions in Liberia. The plane was used for the transport of the Greater Holdings' staff to and from Liberia.

But Dodson Aviation Maintenance and Spare Parts is still in the business of purchasing scrap airplanes,
and then registering them with the FAA in accordance with international law concerning civil aircraft.

N4610 listed as 'S' = scrapped.
83-4610/4617 Boeing C-22B Ex-commercial 727-100 operated by ANG 4610 (c/n 18811) was formerly B-727-035 N4610 of National Airlines. National merged with Pan American and aircraft named 'Clipper Pathfinder'. Purchased by USAF Aug 21, 1984. Sold Jan 11, 2002 to Dodson International Parts, inc and then to Dodson Aviation Jan 14, 2002. Registered to Dodson Aviation as N4610. Seized by Zimbabwean authorities for carrying suspected mercenaries and military equipment. Dodson supposedly had sold the plane to a South African company, Logo Ltd.
http://www.nationnews.com/StoryView.cfm?Record=48033
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_africa_0...
http://www.kathryncramer.com/wblog/archives/000459.html

Now, if Dodson had simply omitted to register that plane,
they wouldn't have to be throwing rocks at the FAA right about now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeadBroke Donating Member (173 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-04 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. It may be comparing ...
... apples to oranges but since you brought up cars; I have several old registrations and titles from cars I've owned, especially from my first ever car - a 54 Chevy BelAir, and from the very first new car I bought - a 64 Corvair Monza Convertible. I still have the titles and reggies - both cars were parted out and are long gone - yet NJ's DMV will tell you these cars exist because the titles that were issued were never turned in. My garage walls are full of old license plates. Again, it doesn't mean a thing.

My Sister-in-Law still has all the paperwork from my Brother's airplane fleets. Her attic is full of boxes that are full of documents, logs and other business papers that accumulate over the years. I've seen all the registrations, fuel and tax stamps, and inspection certificates issued by the FAA and by other nations. I know he stripped plane X to keep Y and Z flying. A registration that is still hanging around for plane X doesn't mean a thing.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-04 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Airworthiness
is not an issue?

Neither is insurance?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0927/p18s1-usju.html

Tell me more about those plane inspections.
And the FAA Triennial report.

It is one thing to have old papers lying around.
It is quite another to have new documents coming in at the appointed time. Surely you have NOT recently received a registration sticker from the local DMV for your vanished vehicles.

The FAA has asked United Airlines to account for those planes.
TWICE.
United Airlines has refused to answer.
TWICE.

Besides shoring up airlines' cash flow, the bill also would establish a federal victims fund that would give relatives of the nearly 7,000 people killed as a result of the four hijackings the option of recovering compensation without suing. And it would relieve American Airlines and United Airlines from covering property and injury claims beyond the limits of their insurance.
Their planes were rammed into the Pentagon and World Trade Center.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/843/705325.html
http://www.planesafe.org/latest.htm

Surely it would be so simple and so very very convenient for United Airlines to simply say that the planes were destroyed on September 11, 2001.
Surely it would be so simple and so very very convenient for certain high-level members of a certain administration to simply appear before the 9:11 commission ALONE and say what they just so happened to be doing on and before September 11, 2001.

But then again,
these are the predicaments one gets into when one does not want to let the left hand know what the right hand has been doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeadBroke Donating Member (173 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-04 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. A registration ...
... is unrelated to airworthiness. An airplane with a valid registration can be in mint condition and in daily use, or it can be an old wreck lying out in a field with weeds growing in it.

A registration is no indication of anything - just like the titles I have to my 54 BelAir and 64 Monza. Both those cars were slowly dismantled and parted out well over 20 years ago, and are long long gone.

Using your theory - and apparently beyond any reasonable doubt in your mind - both my cars still exist and are roadworthy because I still have the titles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-04 05:09 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. cars and planes - some german aspects
Edited on Sun Apr-04-04 05:53 AM by medienanalyse
I find your chitchat a valuable mind clearing. We germans are said to be very official and serious, but: My guess is that airtraffic means some more paperwork and bureaucracy than to run a car in Germany.
We have the following issues involved:
a) registration (ownership)
b) TV (technical surveillance) (streetworthyness)
c) taxes
d) insurance

All of them are interwoven. I.e. without paying your taxes you will get a lot of problems leading in the end to loosing the car. But if you go to the registration office and tell them that your car is an oldtimer: you will get a special tax. Or if you tell them that you did not get streetworthyness anymore, you will loose a button on the plates, but you can still obtain the physical car (you are the owner) and the plates - but never show up on a street with it, otherwise ...
it is in you interest to not pay any insurance and tax anymore in this case.

So to compare it with the four planes: if I were regulating the FAA procedures according to international law, tax law, airsafety law and insurance law: I would keep up the registration of the planes including (!!!!) my undisputable will to tax the planes to inspect them regularly and to know them to be insured - untill the owner comes and changes the registration. Oldtimers would loose airworthyness (remark in the computersystem and remark in your paperwork) and duty of insurance. The registration would not be wiped out but changed in the case of a passenger jet because of the sense of ACARS: to make sure that parts of the planes are branmarked wit their history.

The question remains: was the registration changed to another owner/oldtimer/destroyed ? No? So the companies still pay taxes, check the airworthyness and keep the planes insured untill now.

Tertium non datur. There is no alternative.

Dulce: to fix your case - have you with your incredible possibilities of research any idea where the United planes were insured and if they still pay the insurance? (because the airworthyness they might get in another country too -or not?) Is there a "last inspection -button somewhere at the FAA? Compared with other planes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-04 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. Noble House
Edited on Mon Apr-05-04 01:06 AM by DulceDecorum
Lloyd's chairman Saxon Riley said the attacks have "generated the most complex set of insurance liabilities and interdependencies the industry has ever seen".
Any attempt to quantify Lloyds' involvement would be "meaningless at this stage", he said.
But he confirmed that Lloyds has a "substantial involvement" with the WTC as well as the two US airlines whose planes were hijacked for the attacks, American Airlines and United Airlines.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1542020.stm

http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2003/07/...
United Airlines has filed a lawsuit against a unit of insurer American International Group (AIG) for losses incurred following the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks.

The airline is seeking USD25m from AIG to cover some of the airline's losses after US air traffic was shut down following the terrorist attacks. United claims that under a property and business interruption policy issued by the Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania the insurer must pay for "loss of gross revenue as a result of the enormous damage caused by the 9/11 events including the total shutdown of the United States aviation system."
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0CWU/2003_July_16/1...

American International Group (AIG) founded in Shanghai, China is now based in New York. It is the first western insurance company to be granted a license to do business in China since the Communists consolidated their power. AIG was founded 73 years ago. AIG is the USs largest international insurer, the only US insurer found overseas and the USs leading commercial and industry insurer. Its strength overseas, however, lies in life insurance. Through subsidiaries, AIG is the largest life insurer in Southeast Asia and in the Philippines. AIGs success results from strong fiscal controls, product innovation and worldwide distribution of its products. The company is a master at finding unfilled niches, such as kidnapping and ransom insurance.
http://www.duke.edu/~charvey/Finance/club/company2.htm

The previous biggest payout was US$15 billion in 1992 for damage caused by Hurricane Andrew in the US. Eight insurance companies collapsed as a result.
<snip>
Mr Mok said there were 22 US insurance companies with operations in Hong Kong, the largest being American International Assurance (AIA) - the biggest insurance firm in Hong Kong with a 20 per cent share of the market.
AIA's US parent, AIG, is believed to have been hit hard, but Mr Mok said AIA had assured him they had no problems.
Mr Leckie believed insurers would need to pay out about US$10 billion to families of the victims. This is based on the assumption of a death toll of around 10,000, with each having life insurance cover of US$1 million - the average amount in the US. The total death toll could be huge because 50,000 people worked in the World Trade Centre, and up to 150,000 people pass through it every day.
Cover for the building itself is expected to be US$5 billion, based on the cost of reconstruction.
A further US$3 billion would be needed to cover interruption to business as thousands of companies were forced to stop work.
About US$2 billion could be paid in medical insurance cover, and US$1 billion to US$2 billion for the loss of the four aircraft.
"This will definitely be the most expensive catastrophe," Mr Leckie said.
http://special.scmp.com/aua/econimpact/ZZZ5BARCJRC.html

Funny how all those planes seem to have survived
whereas we are unanimous is assent that the WTC complex was destroyed.

Concerning the ownership of the UA planes.
They still belong to United Airlines.
They have not been sold (properly) and their registration has not been changed. If the planes are sold to another country, the N-Number has to be removed because the N signifies US ownership.
There is set of international laws regarding civil aircraft and their registration. That is one of the reaons why the FAA cannot play fast and loose with the registrations. HOWEVER, this set of international laws only covers CIVIL aircraft. That means that if the military (say the CIA) takes the plane, then the FAA cannot do anything about enforcing federal and international law that only covers CIVIL and NOT military planes.
This is the type of situation that N4610 found itself in. See the thread entitled "The Dogs of War."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-04 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Tiles are different from registration
You can have the title to those old cars, yes.
I agree with you that having the title means little or nothing.
The title is like a big receipt.
I have receipts to gifts I gave away for Christmas.
I do not have the gift. It is gone. But yes, I have the receipts.
You too, can have the titles to those long-gone cars.
But the REGISTRATION is a another matter entirely.

When a car gets into an accident, the insurance company may say that the car is TOTALED.
In this case, the insurance company pays off the debt for the car.
The insurance company now holds the title to the car which is probably rusting away in some back lot somewhere.

In many cases however, someone fixes up the car and then tries to REGISTER it. In order to do so, they have to give the VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) which is the serial number of the car.
When this number is punched into the DMV computer it gives a history of the car and says that the car was totaled.

That means that
A) the vehicle belongs to the insurance company and
B) the vehicle is not roadworthy.

So you see, the car STILL EXISTS and can be driven BUT it CANNOT BE REGISTERED.
Before a vehicle can be REGISTERED in the US, it must first be INSURED.
So you have to go first to the insurance company and after they take your money and process your paperwork
(without cutting any corners because THEIR money is involved)
then they give you a piece of paper to take to the REGISTRY of motor vehicles.

The planes we are talking about are REGISTERED.
That means a lot.
United Airlines holds the TITLE to both planes but the title is only like a big receipt.
The TITLES of the two American Airlines planes were held in trust because the owners were foreign.
We do not really care so much about the TITLES.
We are talking about the REGISTRATION.

Every two or three years the registry of motor vehicles sends a sticker out to those people whose cars are REGISTERED.
If you have not kept up with the paperwork and the inspections,
or if you have tickets and taxes that you did not pay,
then you do not get a sticker.
If you drive without a registration sticker and get caught,
then you are in BIG TROUBLE.

DeadBroke,
when was the last time you received a sticker from the DMV for any of those disintegrated cars?
There is NO WAY you could have received a registration sticker
because those cars ARE NOT REGISTERED.

The planes of United Airlines ARE REGISTERED
and the FAA says that the registration is VALID.
Wie ist das mgliches?

The FAA has asked United Airlines to clarify the status of those two planes.
TWICE.
United Airlines has refused to reply.
TWICE.

Why?
What reason could United Airlines POSSIBLY HAVE for refusing to fill out the paperwork?
And why are those TWO planes STILL REGISTERED?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-04 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. a good question
"What reason could United Airlines POSSIBLY HAVE for refusing to fill out the paperwork?
And why are those TWO planes STILL REGISTERED?"

Dulce - you are bright, but there are people brighter than you.
You are fast - but there are people faster than you.

And because of that it is a little bit stupid to let two pieces of evidence (very big ones) exist. When nearly everybody can find out that these planes still exist it is an incredible mistake to let them find out that the whole 9/11 story is a hoax. Just for some small millions of dollars.

That is why I have doubts in your theory. And AA acted correctly. Ir makes no sense. Same with the social security numbers. I put in different names of living and dead people: not everybody is/was registered, and not everybody who was registered and dead was notified.

As you know some of the passengers were Germans. They are missing. The others too. Now let us presume only pilots and copilots survived the plot (whatever it may be): it would not make any sense to let them run around with their own old social security number. If there were a horrible plot: they would have another face, another name and another social security.

This does not destroy the value of your findings, Dulce. But I think the value is and was low. It will rise up thousands of times as the "missing links" when one of the planes or one of the pilots really turn up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-04 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Not so bright, not so fast,
Edited on Mon Apr-05-04 02:44 PM by DulceDecorum
look at their leader.

Also, it is very very difficult to remember every little thing.
I do not know if you are aware of a certain detective show called Columbo.
Columbo is one of my heroes.
He is very careful and looks at the details.
Adrian Monk is somewhat like this too. Except in his case I think it is part of his illness.
No matter. I am not the only one who is comparing known fiction with hard cold facts.

Years ago, I saw a movie, "My Cousin Vinnie." Vinnie was studying to be a lawyer. He wasn't a good classroom student, but he had a unique ability. He could figure out how things fit together. Show him a magic trick, and he could tell you how the magician did it. Tell him a story with a missing link, and he could identify where the missing link was, and maybe what it was. He could solve puzzles.
I am trying to locate Vinnie.
This puzzle is no game. The United States has gone to war on the basis of one solution to this puzzle. We have not yet been told what this solution is.
The puzzle begins with the crash of four airliners. We must work our way backward from this.
http://www.rense.com/general15/perplexingpuzzle.htm

medienanalyse, I once knew of a situation where someone wanted to kill another person (whose demise I would not have lamented) but the aggrieved party did not want to spend any time in prison after the fact. So this person spent several YEARS reading murder mysteries so as to come up with the perfect crime. After many many years, when this person was now not able to actually execute their wishes, they informed me that they had concluded that to do such a thing, to commit a crime and leave no clues, NOTHING, that could be traced back to oneself, was impossible.
"There is always going to be something you forget. Something you don't know is going to get you in trouble. It can always be traced back to you, no matter how difficult you make it to do so."

Look at the airport gates for example.
In Europe the gates belong to the airport and the air control sends the plane to the nearest available gate. In the US the system is different. The gate belongs to the airline and nobody else can use it. That is why there are so many delays in US airspace.
But you and I do not need to know that. We just get on and off the plane.

Look at the passenger lists.
Ooops forgot to put in Arabic sounding names.

Look at the hijackers.
Ooops forgot to make sure that the IDs we used all belonged to dead people with no relatives who could complain.

Look at the put-options.
Ooops forgot to tell people not to gamble on the outcome of this scheme.
And that one single 5 billion transaction is going to be a bitch to hide.

Look at the booking of the tickets.
Ooops forgot that they can trace one ticket to a white male at the library in the University of Oklahoma.

Look at the debris.
OH NO! I almost forgot that the FAA has records of every single part in every single civil plane. Can't let them find any.

Look at the transponders.
HAH! I DID remember to turn off the transponder because I do know that the tail number and the transponder are linked and that if the transponder is on then I will never be able to convince anyone that I am another plane.

Look at the telephone calls.
And look VERY VERY CLOSELY at the people who claim to have made or received them.
Check out their background BEFORE September 11.
And then come back shaking with shock and awe at your discovery.

The old social security numbers are still lying around.
But what is even more interesting is the idea that some of these people do not appear to have had Social Security numbers BEFORE September 11, 2001.
Some of these people do not check out very well when one looks closely at what they were doing for all those YEARS BEFORE September 11, 2001.

Take for example the mother of Mark Bingham.
She worked at United Airlines for 33 years and retired in, I think, 2003. Now her son was 31 when he died in 2001 which means that she worked for United for his entire life. Mark Bingham is her only child.
OK so far?

But I can pull up links that show that she has given birth to ONE twin (don't ask!!) girl and one entire set of triplets in the last few years. And since those things were recorded coming out of her body, there is not very much wiggle room.
There are also very many links that say that she did not have a job and that Mark had to fish in the harbor so that they could have something to eat.
And then look at her last name - Hoglan(?) and that of her blood brother - Hoagland (Hogland?)
Many discrepancies.

Remember, medienanalyse, that is only ONE person. Wait until you look at some of the others.
The pilots for instance.
Burlingame worked for American Airlines for about 20 years after he got out of the US military. And yet if you check his record with the FAA you find that he got his Flight Engineer and his Airline Transport Pilot certificates BOTH on the same day and that day is September 11, 1996. So now, we must ask American Airlines HOW they managed to overlook this little bit of paperwork.

medienanalyse, let me tell you a short story. It would be better if we could sit down with a nice lager or a bottle of wine, but all the same, here goes. It is very appropriate considering the intellect of chimpanzees, and it comes from a source Dubya would approve of.
http://jesusisthelight.net/MONKEY.htm

On edit:
One more thing, medienanalyse, the two American Airlines planes were owned by foreigners. All these foreigners had to do was to lease the plane back from American Airlines and fly it to their home country. Next, they tell the FAA and American Airlines and whoever else is interested, that the plane was destroyed on January 14, 2002.
Finally, they take the title back from Wilmington Trust and First National Bank and go their own country and register the plane there.
Fait accompli.
Since United Airlines is both the owner and the operator and is stationed in the US, this avenue of escape is not available to them.
And, as you can see for yourself, the two United Airlines planes remain registered with the FAA to this very day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-04 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #26
35. Dont try to be Columbo. You are not. We are not.
>Columbo is one of my heroes.
I like his coat, his car, his background-wife.

>This puzzle is no game. The United States has gone to war on the basis of one solution to this puzzle. We have not yet been told what this solution is.
Agree.

>Look at the airport gates for example.
No problem. I look and take it in and accept your and woodys research..
>Look at the passenger lists.
I did a lot of research myself.
>Look at the hijackers.
I did a lot of research myself.
>Look at the put-options.
I know Chossudovykys and CopvyCIA research.
>Look at the booking of the tickets.
Thats new to me.
>Look at the debris.
I have seen photos of plane debris in the Pentagon and of a huge jet turbine in the streets of Manhattan. All this is constantly ignored by the conspiracy theorists. They do not look.
>Look at the transponders.
Some were on, some were off. Or not. We are dependent on the system which are only few people : one special ATC in Nashua who directed three crashes and one in Cleveland who was the one and only in the most crowded ARTCC of the world because of the evacuation. The FAA centre was cleared of civilians too. So we rely on little information out of the hands of some dubious sources.
>Look at the telephone calls.
I researched some of them too and I agree: I do not find evidence of one of them.
>And look VERY VERY CLOSELY at the people who claim to have made or received
them.
Yes agree.

Result: I agree on most of your points. But my conclusions are different because of
some differences in information.

>The old social security numbers are still lying around.
do not appear to have had Social Security numbers when one looks closely at These terms are vague. You have a suspicion. In fact my German victims are real persons. So even if some of your informations are valid what do they prove, what can they prove?

>Take for example the mother of Mark Bingham.
I do. Hi mother this is Mark Bingham always sounds funny. Now you have good material which says: the story might be bought.
>Many discrepancies.
Yes. And?

>Remember, medienanalyse, that is only ONE person. Wait until you look at some of the others.
I must wait because you are in the country of research. But again: what can be the result? I always and already agreed to not accepting the phonecalls as evidence. Our main difference is: you look into the hidden parts of the story which is nice and good and fruitfull some day. I prefer to look at the open information which is enough. I do not want to replace a criminal investigation, especially not because we do not get certain informations.

Take the open truth: America was not defended. Indict Bush and Rumsfeld as soon as possible. Impeachment because of criminal negligence is enough the rest will come and must come.

>The pilots for instance.
Burlingame worked for American Airlines for about 20 years after he got out of the US military. And yet if you check his record with the FAA you find that he got his Flight Engineer and his Airline Transport Pilot certificates BOTH on the same day and that day is September 11, 1996. So now, we must ask American Airlines HOW they managed to overlook this little bit of paperwork.
Your conclusion? You cant conclude anything out of that seriously. Mrs. Burlingame was one of the hang-him fraction here in Germany in the Mzoudi-case. Mr. Burlingame was in the Pentagon working on terrorism-issues. I do know that. What is a serious conclusion? And even when you have it is it important?

>medienanalyse, let me tell you a short story. It would be better if we could sit down with a nice lager or a bottle of wine
Agree very much

>One more thing, medienanalyse, the two American Airlines
planes were owned by foreigners. All these foreigners had to do was to lease
the plane back from American Airlines and fly it to their home country.
Next, they tell the FAA and American Airlines and whoever else is interested,
that the plane was destroyed on January 14, 2002.
Finally, they take the title back from Wilmington Trust and First National Bank
and go their own country and register the plane there.
Fait accompli.
Pure fiction. What I see is that after some weeks of paperwork AA finished registration in a completely unsuspicious way.

>Since United Airlines is both the owner and the operator and is stationed in the US, this avenue of escape is not available to them.
And, as you can see for yourself, the two United Airlines planes remain registered with the FAA to this very day.

Yes and I see and say it is suspicious. But to no avail. You put yourself into the position to prove something. This position is always week, especially when you do not have all evidence at hand.

Much more fruitful is the position to let the Bushists prove their case. They cannot - and they should be able to because they have the evidence which they deny to make public. So they have a problem. If you want to have a problem too join them. In a way which hurts me who likes your abilities of research you do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-04 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. I agree on most of your points.
Edited on Tue Apr-06-04 11:17 PM by DulceDecorum
But my conclusions are different because of some differences in information.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 04:45 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. again brilliant ...
this answer. Makes me smile.
I see what you are up to. And if you get, collect and puzzle together the details all that might clarify better how exactly 9/11 was engineered. My guess is you are pertly right, partly on a wrong way. But I am not able to compete with you in your special research, so go on and see yourself. Again: I agree with you that there were no phonecalls and no Arab hijackers. But this does not necessarily lead to your way of research. My favorit point is to look for "commando solo" and the ec-130 which are positioned between all the four planes and which were seen. But even that is subordinated to the "stand down" question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeadBroke Donating Member (173 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-04 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. Like I said in #14 ....
... when it comes to airplanes and cars it may be comparing apples to oranges. It's also just as difficult to compare the DMV rules and regulations in my state to those of another state; BUT it is true that the vehicle ownership titles I still have for cars long gone, sold for their parts, can still be looked up by DMV and considered whole.

To demonstrate this I'll share an experience: I actually had a problem with this very issue when I divorced. I filled out all the required paperwork - Case Information Statements - and I didn't list those two cars as property; after all I sold them part by part, but my soon to be ex-wife's attorney who had access to the contents our safety deposit box and all important papers claimed the cars existed and his "proof" was his ex-cop investigator's search of DMV records. I was accused in court papers he filed of failing to report all the property - two classic cars worth, in his opinion tens of thousands of dollars each.

But back to airplanes; I can assure you that my Brother owned numerous airplanes during his lifetime and that his widow still has registrations and boxes full of other related paperwork on all his airplanes including those he needed to dismantle to keep the rest of his fleet aflight. His planes were all very old US Army Aircorps surplus that mostly flew all over South America, (carrying what he called the 4 Ms - mail, missionaries, military and medicine) and as I explained before, he's strip plane X to keep planes Y & Z flying. It was impossible to find parts for 40-50 year old planes and tearing one down for parts isn't unusual. Having the papers for X doesn't mean X is still around or is airworthy. Whatever is left of plane X, if anything is still left of it, may probably be rotting away in some field in Chile or Argentina.

Using your theory, my Sister-in-Law is the proud owner of dozens and dozens of airworthy real planes.

The USS Arizona, sunk on 12-7-41 was never decommissioned. It will never sail again, but it's kept active by the Navy to honor those who were aboard; and airlines can do the same.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mn9driver Donating Member (877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-04 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Don't worry about it too much--
DD's registration issue has been pretty thoroughly debunked in several other threads, for example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

He still brings it up every couple of weeks. Sort of like a hairball, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-04 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. Not so
I asked you to tell us WHEN you last received any communication from the local Department of Motor Vehicles concerning those long-gone vehicles to which you have the the title. The vehicles in question are NOT registered and so, for decades, the local DMV has expressed no interest whatsoever in them. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

The DMV keeps a close watch on the OPERATORS of the vehicles in much the same way that the FAA monitors the OPERATORS of aircraft.
Most vehicles on the road today are actually OWNED by a bank. But the bank usually has absolutely no idea where any particular vehicle is at any given time. The bank holds title to the vehicle but it does not actually have physical possession of the vehicle.
You have the title of those vehicles but you do not happen to have the actual vehicle.
I have the receipts but I do not have the gifts I gave away at Christmas.
The title is similar to a receipt in that it demonstrates proof of purchase of certain property. But a title is only a piece of paper.

The operator must register the vehicle before they can legally drive it on the nation's highways. There are taxes which must be paid to the city and the state.
In the US, a plane must be registered with the state and also with the Federal Aviation Administration. Taxes must be paid to the state and probably also the federal government.
The registration of the car is NOT good for ever and neither is the registration of the plane.
The registration can expire.

Take a look at this page for more on the registration of aircraft in the US.
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/47-index.shtml

Deadbroke says:
But back to airplanes; I can assure you that my Brother owned numerous airplanes during his lifetime and that his widow still has registrations and boxes full of other related paperwork on all his airplanes including those he needed to dismantle to keep the rest of his fleet aflight.
<snip>
Using your theory, my Sister-in-Law is the proud owner of dozens and dozens of airworthy real planes.

Not so.
My theory is based on:

Sec. 47.41 - Duration and return of Certificate.
(a) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA under this subpart is effective, unless suspended or revoked, until the date upon which --
(1) Subject to the Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft when applicable, the aircraft is registered under the laws of a foreign country;
(2) The registration is canceled at the written request of the holder of the certificate;
(3) The aircraft is totally destroyed or scrapped;
(4) Ownership of the aircraft is transferred;
(5) The holder of the certificate loses his U.S. citizenship;
(6) 30 days have elapsed since the death of the holder of the certificate; ....
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part47-41-FAR.shtml

Your brother is deceased.
It appears that he has been deceased for more than thirty days.
Therefore,
assuming that the planes in question were registered in the US,
the registration of each and every single plane owned by your brother, has expired.

Those planes owned an operated by United Airlines continue
INEXPLICABLY
to have valid registrations
DESPITE
the widespread belief that those particular planes were destroyed on September 11, 2001.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-04 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #18
33. You keep confusing
the registration with the title.

The two are as different as comparing the medical record and the academic record of someone.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-04 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #14
24. Probably mail
if it is not too personal a question, exactly WHAT was your dearly departed brother transporting on those planes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-04 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #24
28. You knew him?
and helped transport his cargo?

That would explain a lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeadBroke Donating Member (173 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-04 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. Please see #25 ...
... where I stated he liked (jokingly) to call his cargo the 4 Ms; mail, medicine, missionaries and military. I know he did tons of work for the petroleum exploration and refining companies because he had planes and crew for trips from Houston to Monterrey, Mexico and then to points south with valves, pipes and instruments. I know from photographs (more on photographs below) that he mailed to my children that he also did airfreight for US companies like Anderson Windows, Caterpillar, Ford and so on. Mormon missionaries were frequent fliers. I doubt, DulceDecorum that any of his work was CIA or illegal drug related. I also don't think he transported rare exotic nearly extinct animals, kidnapped infants for illegal adoptions or pirated young women for prostitution. He lived and died the same way he was born - broke. Money never meant anything, he was all about adventure. His planes were pretty beat-up and they were called the Duct Tape Specials by the other fleets, but he scraped a living from it while loving every minute. Oh, by the way - we checked some of his tail numbers off those old photos with your link. Oh yeah, still valid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-04 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. You might want to check into those"valid" registrations
or then again,
maybe not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-04 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. Thank God
I studied under Master Po.


There was funky Billie Chin
And little Sammy Chung
He said, "Here comes the big boss, (Wha-ha)
Let's get it on."
We took the bow and made a stand,
Started swaying with the hand
A sudden motion made me stiff,
Now we're into a brand-new trip.

Everybody was Kung Fu fighting,
those kicks were fast as lightning
In fact it was a little bit fright'ning,
But they did it with expert timing.

Oh-oh-oh-oh...
Oh-oh-oh-oh...
Oh-oh-oh-oh...
Oh-oh-oh-oh...

--Carl Douglas


Well folks,
it appears that we can no longer trust the government of the United States of America.
When the FAA says something, it may not be true.
http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/D_0912_N.txt

When the SSA says something, it may not be true.
http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/ssdi/index.html#reasons

We must be careful about the information that we accept
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,8...
ESPECIALLY
when it contradicts the White House.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/cnna.karl.dea... /

We have achieved a stalemate.

NOTHING that the FAA says about the whereabouts of ANY PLANE can be trusted.
NOTHING that the SSA says about the viability of ANYONE with an SS number can be accepted as truth.

So we must look to other sources.
CNN?
http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0403/22/a19-97854...

The New York Times?
http://www.ruminatethis.com/archives/001378.html

But then again:
Jayson Blair was only a fluke deviation. Miller strikes right at the core of the regular functioning news machine.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_di...

So ladies and gentlemen
and creatures from the darkside,
don't believe all you hear and only half of what you see.
....and those damn planes are STILL ALIVE,
and N4610 really was registered to Dodson Aviation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-04 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Dulce - I do not agree with you in many points
but this your last posting is

BEATING.

Congratulations. The Bushist theorist rode themselves into the corner and must accept the branding: "conspiracy theorists".

We need an independent research, Commission, witness protection programs and so on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-04 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Maybe the planes are in Saudi Arabia?

A government document obtained by a Washington, D.C., watchdog group reveals that 160 people from Saudi Arabia were allowed to fly home immediately after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/regional...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-04 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Perhaps.....
Zimbabwe:
Boeing 727 N4610, was scrapped but later showed up with a planeload of mercenaries on their way to a coup or two.
http://www.newsfollowup.com/mercenarygate.htm

Peru:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=10791

Or maybe Columbia.

DynCorp's roots are in aviation--the firm started as California Eastern Airways in 1946--and its aircraft-maintenance business has received a big boost in recent years from a wave of outsourcing by the Air Force. Two and a half years ago DynCorp won a $280 million contract from the Air Force to service the government's executive air fleet, INCLUDING THE VICE PRESIDENT'S PLANE AND THE PRESIDENT'S CHOPPERS. (Air Force One is still maintained by the military.) At Fort Rucker in Alabama, where DynCorp's headcount has doubled to 3,000 in the past five years, DynCorp's mechanics service the planes and store aircraft parts.
<snip>
Perhaps nowhere have private military companies played a more significant role than in the war against drugs in Colombia. At least a half-dozen companies, including Airscan, Northrop Grumman, and DynCorp, receive up to $1.2 billion a year from the Pentagon and the State Department to fly the planes that spray suspected coca fields and to monitor smugglers from remote radar sites, says Brookings Institution scholar P.W. Singer
http://www.rppi.org/warbusiness.html

Just hope that it does not turn up anywhere near your own backyard.

Finally, and most seriously of all, violence must be a government monopoly. It is intolerable to think of private parties having any control over armed forces and police in a democracy. Yet they now do in America. Without the cooperation of the "War-Marts," as they are sometimes called, the American military cannot fly, sail or march. We have made it much easier than ever before to pull off some kind of coup detat, and I dont put it past the neocon elements to contemplate such a thing if the wrong Democrat were to find a way to get elected to the Presidency.
http://newyorkobserver.com/pages/story.asp?ID=8663
http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=94
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
39. The discussion continues
from
The WTC no-plane theories are a danger
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Some characters are STILL insisting that ALL FOUR 9:11 planes' FAA records are bogus.
When did these records become bogus?
Before, during, or after September 11, 2001?
What about the other records of other planes on the same database?
Are they bogus as well?

In any case, that particular discussion belongs in this thread.

136.
AMERICAN AIRLINES AND UNITED AIRLINES

lost NOTHING.
Furthermore, those two companies have been intertwining themselves in a manner that is most destructive to regular people,
and the FAA has been constrained.

8/30/01 8:31 PM
DALLAS (AP) -- The Inspector General of the Transportation Department has agreed to review allegations that the Federal Aviation Administration didn't conduct a thorough investigation of American Airlines' safety practices.
In a 14-page letter to Inspector General Kenneth Mead, American Airlines Capt. Rich Rubin accused the FAA's southwest regional office of lax enforcement and collusion with the airline.
http://www.airlineinvestigationunit.com/aiu/ap010830.ht...

Liotine informed his supervisors and a corporate vice-president about these violations, but he was ignored. He then told the FAA. Afterwards Liotine, who was president of the Machinists' union local in Oakland at the time, was removed from office by the union and placed on paid administrative leave by the airline. Liotine claims that he and his family have since received anonymous threats.
The FAA inspector who investigated the allegations recommended an $8.7 million fine against Alaska Airlines, but he was overruled by FAA officials in Los Angeles, who reduced the proposed fine to $44,000. However, federal authorities decided to pursue criminal charges, an indication that the violations were conscious and willful and involved higher level officials at Alaska Airlines.
In February 1999 federal prosecutors met with Alaska Airlines officials and their attorneys. An FAA inspector who attended the meeting wrote in a memo that the airline appeared to be more concerned with building a legal defense than addressing safety issues. Alaska's concern for safety, he said, was secondary to finding out what and who we had on them.
These revelations are part of mounting evidence of more general deficiencies in air safety in the US, and a degree of laxity in enforcing safety standards on the part of the FAA that verges on outright collusion with the airline carriers and Boeing
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/alas-f19.shtm...

As you can see, the FAA inspectors
are treated in much the same manner
as that in which Collen Rowley and the Minnesota FBI
are treated by Mueller's fraternity.

Dec. 14 2001 Continental, Delta and Northwest filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to require British Airways to make available its strategic planning study that includes information pertinent to the case.
Dec. 12 Delta filed a complaint with the European Commission requesting a formal inquiry to determine if the proposed alliance infringes on EC competition law.
Nov. 27 Twenty U.S. Senators urged the Bush Administration to deny antitrust immunity. In addition, several state governors have said the alliance will put their states at a competitive disadvantage by preventing them from improving their states international air service
Nov. 7 The U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights & Competition conducted a hearing on the proposed American Airlines-British Airways arrangements.
http://www.continental.com/vendors/default.asp?SID=9DE1... ...

U.S. Department of Justice Opposes American Airlines-British Airways Combination
WASHINGTON, D.C., December 17, 2001 -- The proposed transatlantic alliance between American Airlines (AA) and British Airways (BA) is so highly anticompetitive that it has been opposed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), according to three major U.S. airlines.
Under the proposed alliance scheme, American and British Airways would be a whopping 300 percent larger than the nearest competitor on U.S.-U.K routes, with nearly 81 percent of all U.S.-Heathrow travelers seeing competition reduced or eliminated. Proposed combinations among AA-BA and United-bmi (British Midland) would create a level of U.S.-London Heathrow seat concentration greater than a merger between the six largest domestic U.S. carriers or combining the top 21 European airlines.

Friday, January 25, 2002
Department of Transportation Tentatively Approves Antitrust Immunity Covering the Alliances of American Airlines and British Airways, and United Airlines and BMI
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot01002.htm
http://www.flybmi.com/bmi/en-gb/aboutbmi/presscentre/pr... ...

FOR RELEASE: Friday, May 30, 2003
AMERICAN AIRLINES-BRITISH AIRWAYS CODESHARE GETS FINAL APPROVAL
Airlines to Begin Planning Immediately
WASHINGTON British Airways and American Airlines say they are eager to get to work on a codeshare arrangement, formally approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation today, which allows the airlines to codeshare on a large number of flights beyond the carriers gateways in the United Kingdom and the United States.
http://www.amrcorp.com/news/may03/30_aaba.htm

November 25, 2003
MASSIVE NARCOTICS IMPORTATION CONSPIRACY AT JFK AIRPORT EXPOSED -- 25 DEFENDANTS CHARGED, INCLUDING 21 AIRPORT EMPLOYEES
These recorded conversations led to the ensuing investigation, which included court-authorized interception of wire communications over numerous telephones used by WEATHERLY, MICHAEL ADAMS, a baggage handler employed by Globe Ground North American, assigned to BRITISH AIRWAYS at JFK, TYRONE BROWNE, a former JFK employee, and GARY LALL, a baggage handler employed by AMERICAN AIRLINES at JFK.
http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/newsrel/articles/snows... ...
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/25/lol.06.html

But the US Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, told Congress that the US government would move swiftly to give aid to the industry, to ensure that the costs of extra safety measures and the increased costs of insurance did not fall on the industry.
The US government has proposed a $5bn handout to help US airlines and assist with insurance liabilities, but has stopped short of the $12.5bn the industry says it needs to stave off bankruptcies.
Pain spreads to Europe
Hours after the US announcements, UK carrier British Airways said it would sack 7,000 people - about 12.5% of its workforce - mothball planes and cut routes because of plunging demand.
United - America's number two airline which is also shedding 20,000 jobs - has been harder hit by the disaster than any of the other carriers.
In addition to losing two of its planes in the suicide bombings, it is more heavily reliant on business travel, expected to be adversely affected by the attacks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1553416.stm

These two airlines bankruptcies and Americans financial plight, have been brought about, not by any September 11 victims lawsuit, but by the arguably excessive salaries and "bonuses" paid to its management for poorly managing the airlines and for helping to bring about the large downturn in air travel by having failed to protect their passengers from hijacking and sabotage as the law required. And this in spite of both United and American having received their share of the 10 billion dollars of taxpayer money paid to airlines in the above "bailout bill." The U.S. Congress is currently considering additional bailout bills.
http://www.planesafe.org/latest.htm

Mar 7, 2002
The two largest US airlines, United and American, are to integrate their electronic ticketing systems, making life easier for thousands of passengers transferring flights.
<snip>
Now passengers will be able to make the transfer simply by presenting a photo ID and their e-ticket receipt at both United and American ticket counters.
http://news.airwise.com/stories/2002/03/1015525770.html

Continental Alleges United/American Conspiracy
Feb 8, 2001
Gordon Bethune, chairman of Continental Airlines, yesterday accused United and American of a conspiracy to create a cartel that would split the US market between them.
At a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Bethune also called for the Transportation Department (DOT) to take away routes from his rivals if the deal is approved.
Bethune's strong opposition was unexpected since Continental is in exploratory talks with Delta Air Lines over a potential merger of its own.
But Bethune said he would rather maintain the status quo than be forced into a deal with Delta.
His comments were the latest in an increasing groundswell in the industry and on Capitol Hill against the mergers, whereby United would buy all of US Airways for USD$4.3bn and then sell 20 per cent of the acquired assets to American for USD$1.2bn.
Bethune said that the deal would allow the two largest airlines to eliminate competition illegally in the US and could lead to global dominance.
"Clearly, United and American's plan is to reach detente, build a cartel, and carve up and dominate the US air travel market," he said.
"Ultimately, the same way United and American have split Chicago O'Hare and London Heathrow, they will split the rest of the US and maybe even split global aviation."
http://news.airwise.com/airlines/archive/2001/american2...

Let us see how many airlines,
besides Ansett and Midway,
collapsed after the 9:11 high jinks.

ZURICH, Switzerland -- Airlines across Europe are reporting drastic falls in passenger numbers and profits in the wake of the U.S. suicide bombings.
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/10/03/swissair /

Swissair and Sabena will not be the last airlines to seek protection from their creditors. Several of America's ten largest carriers are in danger of collapse, despite last week's government bail-out. Among the weakest financially are America West, Northwest, Continental and US Airways. In Europe other once-proud flag-carriers, such as KLM of the Netherlands, may be weeks away from oblivion.
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8083...

So, to recap.
American Airlines and United Airlines each "lost" two international Warsaw Convention codeshare planes, - which were flying on US domestic routes - on September 11, 2001.
(We will ignore, for the moment, the fact that some of those flights were chartered by parties who shall remain nameless for the time being.)
Somehow or other, BOTH airlines "forgot" to complete FAA paperwork that was "necessary" for the US Government payoff.
Both airlines laid off HUNDREDS of workers - without penalty - in the face of an oncoming merger.
Somehow or other, BOTH airlines managed to "persuade" the US government to grant them anti-trust immunity in two separate deals that would have destroyed international aviation as we knew it.
Both airlines received HUGE amounts of money IMMEDIATELY after September 11,2001.

MercutioATC says:
...I'm sure the aviation industry (specifically American Airlines and United Airlines who must have been complicit) willingly helped perpetuate the lie and lost hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue because the public was afraid to fly...

As for the airlines
http://www.stormingmedia.us/04/0494/A049423.html

As for the passengers
http://www.indymedia.be/news/2004/05/84711.php

As for the planes
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/defimg.asp

As for the FAA
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/craf.htm
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=173

As for the ATC
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch4/mil0405.html
http://www.titan.com/products-services/abstract.html?do...
http://www.titan.com/products-services/abstract.html?do...
http://www.titan.com/products-services/abstract.html?do...
http://www.titan.com/products-services/abstract.html?do...
http://www.titan.com/about /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. Lots of links, but I must have missed the answer to my question:
Why would the airlines kill their main source of revenue (passengers)? They DID lose money in revenue after 9/11 because people were afraid to fly (a silly fear). How did this serve them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-04 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. Which ATC school did you attend?
Edited on Thu May-27-04 01:36 AM by DulceDecorum
Just asking.

MercutioATC asks:
Why would the airlines kill their main source of revenue (passengers)?

HOW did that occur?
Seeing as how ALL four planes SURVIVED the events of September 11, 2001 and the
Media published fake passenger lists for American Airlines Flight 11
http://www.indymedia.be/print.php?id=84711

MercutioATC says:
They DID lose money in revenue after 9/11 because people were afraid to fly (a silly fear).

First of all the airlines were apparently "hemorrhaging money"
well BEFORE September 11, 2001.
As a matter of fact, American and United might both have gone under if it were not for the multi-million dollar bailout they received as a direct result of September 11, 2001.
Which is yet another reason why we cannot understand why NEITHER airline managed to report the loss of said planes to the FAA.
The state of US aviation in 2001 was so bad that even Dubya was distracted from his goat stories.

Feb 6, 2001
United States President George W. Bush said today that he is worried about the possibility that strikes could hit the country's four biggest airlines at about the same time in the next few months.
"I am worried about strikes at the airlines. I think that could have a harmful effect on our economy," Mr. Bush said.
"I would urge that the parties settle their disputes. And the President's got some opportunities, some opportunities available, and I will explore all options."
The nation's four biggest carriers - United Airlines, Northwest Airlines, American Airlines and Delta Air Lines - all have contracts expiring with parts of their workforces in the near future.
Northwest mechanics could walk off the job as soon as March and Delta pilots could go on strike in April.
http://news.airwise.com/airlines/archive/2001/american2...

Airlines Claim Poverty After Years of Record Profits;
Bush Backs Management
http://www.labornotes.org/archives/2001/0501/0501a.html

CHICAGO (AP) -- United Airlines is canceling nearly 2,000 flights next month, the latest blow as the world's largest airline struggles to improve relations with its pilots.
United will take 1,980 flights off its September schedule, spokesman Chris Braithwaite said Monday. The airline had already canceled 4,800 flights from May through the end of August after pilots announced they would no longer work overtime.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/TRAVEL/NEWS/08/08/united.cancel... /

Believe me when I say that not one pilot at UAL likes to see our passengers suffer. But we did not take a 25% paycut for six years for this assault on OUR AIRLINE and OUR CAREERS and OUR PASSENGERS
The sad thing is that these overpaid and arrogant senior management does not care.It is down right embarrassing! I am at UAL for a career unlike them. They have no loyalty...after they stuff their pockets with their stock options they move on to the next airline to rape.
http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/30/flights.htm

09/26/2001
NEW YORK Evidence continues to mount that unusual stock and option trading in the parents of American Airlines, United Airlines and other companies reached unusual levels in the days leading up to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.
Data from the New York Stock Exchange show that on Sept. 10, short interest a bet on a falling stock price in United Airlines' parent UAL had jumped 40% from the Aug. 10 level, to 4.4 million shares.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2001-09-26-suspic...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/19/eveningnews/m...

MercutioATC says:
They DID lose money in revenue after 9/11 because people were afraid to fly (a silly fear).

MercutioATC,
you have written post after post stating that the FAA does NOT enforce its own regulations concerning registration and airworthiness.
Then you refer to the fear of flying under such lax supervision as, and I quote,
"a silly fear."

Daddy, Can I Fly the plane?
March 23, 1994 Perhaps Captain Yaroslav Kudrinsky, of Aeroflot flight SU 593, was too enthusiastic about Take Your Kids to Work Day. He let his daughter Yana, 12, and then his son Eldar, 15, sit at the controls. Soon after Junior disconnected the autopilot, the plane shattered against a Siberian hillside, killing all 75 aboard. Heres the story as captured by the cockpit voice recorder.

Captain: We are in the zone of Barnaul, next air-traffic control station.
Yana: Daddy, raise me up. (The seat is moved.)

8:45 p.m.
Captain: Well, are you going to fly it?
Yana: No.
Captain: Hold the wheelhold on! But dont push the buttonsthis button, the red autopilot switch, dont touch it.

8:51 p.m. Eldar (now at the controls): Can I turn this?
Captain: What?
Eldar: The wheel?
Captain: Yes. If you turn it left, where will the plane go?
Eldar: Left.
Captain: Turn it! Watch the ground as you turn. Lets go left. Turn left! (Pause) Is the plane turning?
Eldar: Great!
Captain: Is it turning? Is the plane turning left?
Eldar: Yes, it is.
Copilot: Set the horizon right for him.
(Yana asks if she can go back to the cabin.)
Captain: What for? Youll only sleep in first-classDont run there or theyll fire us!

8:55 p.m.
Eldar: Why is it turning?
Captain: Its turning by itself?
Eldar: Yes!
Copilot: Hey, guys!
Captain: Hold onhold the wheelhold it.
(Low whistling noise, then loud roar.)
Captain: To the left! To the left! To the right!
Copilot: To the other side!
Captain (to Eldar in seat): Get out!
(Apparently, Eldar cant leave the seat quickly. There is a wall to his left and the instrument panel on his right. Roar continues, and alarms signal loss of altitude and critical bank.)
Copilot: Theres the ground!
Captain: Crawl out to the back! Get out! Get out! Get out! Get out! Get out! Get out! Get out! Get out! Get out! Get out! Get out! Get out!

8:56 p.m.
(Sound of autopilot switching off)
Copilot: Full throttle! Full throttle! Full throttle!
Captain (back in his seat): Have full throttle, have full throttle!
Copilot: Full throttle!
Captain: Got it!

8:57.22 p.m.
Captain: Whats the speed?
Copilot: I didnt see the gadget.

8.57.53 p.m. Copilot: Getting out, getting out, getting outto the right! Too much speed, close throttle a bit!
Captain: Done.
Co-pilot: Take it easy.
Captain: Giving you more speed. Easy, well get out of it now.Everythings fine.Pull backwards a little.Take it easy.Take it easy, I tell you.

8:58.01 p.m.
(Crash)
http://www.stuffmagazine.com/articles/html/article_282....

That short clip from this article
clearly demonstrates the sanity of those who are afraid to
Fly The Scary Skies
http://bennun.biz/features/skies.html
And that was BEFORE September 11..........



http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/boeing.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-04 03:59 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. My, you DO bounce around. I'll try to clarify.
1) When I joined the FAA, there was only one school, the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City. That's where I went.

2) While it's true that most of the major airlines were having financial difficulties before 9/11, the loss of passengers after 9/11 only exacerbated the situation. The "bailouts" received by the airlines simply kept them afloat for a little longer, they were not the cash cows that you seem to believe. The airlines' failure to retire the registrations with the FAA makes no difference to them financially, so I don't know what you mean by "Which is yet another reason why we cannot understand why NEITHER airline managed to report the loss of said planes to the FAA." What do registrations have to do with finances?

3) I never stated that the FAA doesn't enforce registration or airworthiness regulations. I didn't speak of airworthiness certificates at all and I made a point of explaining that there's a difference between making sure that flying planes were registered and making sure that registered planes were flying. The FAA is primarily concerned with the former.

4) What do the dangerous actions of a Russian pilot have to do with U.S. ATC or the safety of U.S. airlines? That's like saying that we have a cannibalism problem in the U.S. because guerrilas are eating villagers in the Congo. The former Soviet states have long been recognized as having one of the worst aviation safety records in the world. That has nothing to do with the safety of the American flying public (unless they're dumb enough to get on an Aeroflot plane).

The simple fact is that we had 4500 planes in the air on the morning of 9/11. We lost 4. That's four more than we usually lose, but damn good odds, nonetheless. Flying in this country was and is the safest mode of travel. The public's fear of flying after 9/11 was (and is) unfounded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-04 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. The curse of the Ancient Mariner
The public's fear of flying after 9/11 was (and is) unfounded.

Yeah sure.
Nothing to see here.
Move along.

The public's fear of flying is just as unfounded
as the curse on the family of Theodore Olson.

Monday, December 14, 1998; 10:20 a.m. EST
PORT WASHINGTON, Wis. (AP) -- The Coast Guard suspended its
search for a 42-foot fishing boat missing on Lake Michigan with three
men on board.
The Linda E was reported missing Friday. Its crew was last heard from
that morning, when they were about 6 to 9 miles southeast of Port
Washington, and no distress signal was received, said Cmdr. Ed Gleason.
No trace of the boat was found.
http://members.tripod.com/~mainorg/text/boat.txt

Tugboat Found in Lake Michigan 6 20 00
By TODD RICHMOND .c The Associated Press

Parts of the boat seen in the tape appeared intact. But Coast Guard Cmdr. Dave Lersch said the tape didn't show the bodies of Olson, 44, the Linda E's skipper, 61-year-old Leif Weborg, or his son-in-law, 32-year-old Scott Matta.
A Coast Guard Marine Safety Office investigation is continuing, but Rutta said the Navy handed her nephew, Warren III, an American flag, a military funeral tradition, moments after she and other family members viewed the tape at the Coast Guard station here Monday.
``Something had to go terribly wrong for this to happen,'' Rutta said.
The last anyone heard of the vessel was a cell phone call Weborg placed to Smith Brothers Food Service in Port Washington the morning of Dec. 11, 1998. He said the boat was bound for port with 1,000 pounds of chub. The weather was clear.
It never made it.
<snip>
In 1935, Rutta's grandfather, Arthur Olson, and her uncle Darrald Olson, then 11, were fishing on Lake Michigan when Darrald somehow fell overboard. Her grandfather dove in after him, but it was too late.
Ten years later, her grandfather vanished while his fishing boat was docked in the Lake Superior port of Duluth, Minn. His body was found in the Duluth harbor. Foul play was ruled out.
Rutta is waiting for an answer to the latest tragedy.
``We have to find out why the Linda E is on the bottom of Lake Michigan,'' Rutta said as the lake sparkled behind her. ``It's not really over.''
AP-NY-06-20-00 2011EDT
http://www.efc-inc.com/News/june00.html

In that case, they found the boat - EVENTUALLY.
In the September 11 case,
no plane debris worth a tinker's damn has been located.

There were NO bodies EVER recovered from the Linda E.
The aqua-aliens took them, and their fish,
just as surely as the aero-aliens took the WTC black boxes
and left the paper IDs.

And now, can I interest you in a cruise?

Disneys Navigator series began shortly after lunch with a fascinating insight into the development of the Disney Magic. Attendees were shown a 30 minute video showing the planning of the ship with input from Michael Eisner and Wing Chao (the unofficial architectural "guru" for Walt Disney Imagineering with executive responsibility for the Companys resorts). The video also demonstrated the construction process at the famous shipyard in Venice. However, many guests did gulp hard when they discovered that the ship was actually made in two halves and welded together in Venice!
http://www.laughingplace.com/News-ID506060.asp

MercutioATC,
you said that the FAA is interested in making sure that flying planes are registered.
What is their position on 591UA which is flying under the registration of 594UA?

I am going to leave that cannibal comment alone, save to point out that just about every single church in the US has a Sunday ceremony in which they drink the blood and eat the flesh of the son of their God. I understand that Senator Kerry has been barred from this activity and that some regard that as a bad thing.

As for the aviation record of the Soviet states,
I have three words for you.
Sputnik. Laika. Gagarin.
Oh, and let us not forget Skylab.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/01/30/satellite.drop /
Or Challenger.
Or Columbia.

Furthermore, MercutioATC,
we find it impossible to reconcile the lax record-keeping of the FAA with safe aviation under this same authority.
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/RiskManage...

If the FAA does not bloody well know what the heck has happened to deceased planes in its registry
and insists on telling us that planes whose crashes it has investigated are still flying,
then how the bloody hell do they actually know the condition and location
of ANY of the other planes on their registry?

Either the FAA sucks
or it does not.
And if it sucks at paperwork,
then heaven help us all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-04 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Boat references? Space references? You're reaching here...
Edited on Thu May-27-04 08:30 PM by MercutioATC
Your wonderful story on the Linda E? It's about a boat. Your support of Russian aviation? Well, you're supporting their space program, not their aviation program (pssst, they're two different programs).

I'd like to see one shred of proof that N591UA is flying as N594UA. Until then, it's just a ridiculous, unsubstantiated claim.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the FAA registration database is. It simply certifies that the registrations in the database are current. It does not state anywhere that those planes are flying, or even operational. See, the registrations are documents and the planes are chunks of metal. The FAA is certifying that United's planes still have valid registrations. It says nothing about them flying.

I really don't think this is such a hard concept to grasp. If you're still having difficulties, let me know. I'll try to find a simpler way to explain it.

(on edit) Assume for a moment that I'm the crew chief for a race team. I make sure that all of the parts that go into the car are certified and work well. However, once a part is thrown out, I don't always make sure that the receipts for it are thrown away. I "suck" as a criew chief because of this? Safety is not effected one bit by the FAA not making sure that all planes are removed from its database when they're no longer flyable. The is a reg that demands this, but why spend the resources to enforce it? You're the ONLY person I've ever come across who thinks that the database implies that the planes are still flying. It doesn't - it gust gives information on the registration holder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-04 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. Planespotters
abound in areas such as Chicago which is home to O'Hare.
O'Hare is a major hub of United Airlines.

Those planes have been spotted on NUMEROUS occasions both taking off and landing.
Photographs have been taken.
The damn planes are STILL FLYING.

Incidentally MercutioATC,
that very same FAA database says that the pilots all had FAA certificates.
Yeah sure.
Take the case of Victor Saracini, the pilot of Flight 175.

Saracini was a flight instructor at Louisiana Tech from 1980-82. His widow, Ellen Hildebrand Saracini, said she established the scholarship to commemorate his love of flying.
http://www.tnonline.com/archives/news/2002/08.27/911.ht...

Victor John Saracini
Med First 4/2001 Must have available glasses for near vision
DOI 2/15/94 ATP multi engine land commercial single engine private single engine
A/A320 A/B747-4 A/B757 A/B767 A/CA-212
DOI 5/20/1992 Flight instructor airplane single multi engine land instrument aeroplane
DOI 4/14/1986 Flight engineer turbojet-powered
DOI 1/30/1984 Ground instructor advanced instrument
DOI 10/22/1983 Mechanic airframe power-plant
http://162.58.35.241/aadatabase/login.asp

From the media and the FAA airman registry database,
we learn that Victor Saracini met his wife Ellen Hildebrande Saracini,
while he was working as a flight instructor at Louisiana Tech from 1980-82
despite the fact that FAA records clearly demonstrate that
he did not get his flight instructors license until 1992,
which is over ten years later.
Saracini first FAA cert is that of a Mechanic airframe power-plant and was issued on 10/22/1983 which is one whole year after he gave up teaching at Louisiana Tech.

Since the OFFICIAL STORY has been established beyond all reasonable doubt
those FAA statements are simply typographical errors
made by the same copy-typist
who screwed up the registrations of 591UA and 612UA.

Just for fun,
I went and ran the crew of Flight 175 (N591UA) through the Social Security Death index.

Robert Fangman.
ROBERT J FANGMAN 02 Feb 1896 30 Dec 1990
ROBERT FANGMAN 29 Jan 1919 Nov 1986
ROBERT B FANGMAN 27 Jan 1915 07 Jun

Amy Jarrett
AMY M JARRETT 20 Jan 1936 15 Jan 1994
AMY F JARRETT 16 Mar 1902 18 Dec 1997
AMY JARRETT 15 Feb 1909 Sep 1975
AMY E JARRETT 07 Feb 1916 25 Jul 1996
AMY N JARRET 03 Oct 1972 11 Sep 2001

Amy King (some entries)
AMY T KING 10 Dec 1907 25 May 2000
AMY E KING 30 Apr 1905 21 Apr 2000
AMY K KING 30 Sep 1914 01 Jun 2000
AMY E KING 29 Jan 1975 07 May 2001
AMY E KING 22 Aug 1983 29 Mar 2003
AMY C KING 09 Jul 1932 24 Mar 2003

Kathryn Laborie
NOTHING FOUND

Alfred Marchand
ALFRED MARCHAND 19 Jun 1897 21 Jul
ALFRED MARCHAND 19 Jun 1905 Jun 1974
ALFRED MARCHAND 21 Jun 1895 Feb 1970
ALFRED E MARCHAND 04 Mar 1918 25 Feb 1995
ALFRED MARCHAND 20 Jan 1912 May 1983
ALFRED F MARCHAND 05 Dec 1908 06 May 1992
ALFRED MARCHAND 12 May 1910 Aug 1970
ALFRED J MARCHAND 18 Mar 1912 27 Dec 2001

Michael Tarrou
MICHAEL J TARROU 27 Jun 1926 23 Mar 1995
MICHAEL B TARROU 15 Aug 1896 01 Jun 1990

Alicia Titus
NOTHING FOUND

So, it would appear that only one crew member, (besides Saracini & Horrocks)
Amy Jarrett,
of Flight 175,
managed to have her death recorded on the Social Security Death Index database.

We really have to do something about those rogue copy-typists....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-04 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Wow great news DD
Edited on Fri May-28-04 12:27 PM by LARED
Those planes have been spotted on NUMEROUS occasions both taking off and landing.
Photographs have been taken.
The damn planes are STILL FLYING.


Photographs? Unaltered? Not photoshopped?

I can hardly wait for you to posts some of these pictures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-04 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. All in good time,
All in good time.

In the meantime, watch the skies.
And remember,
the planes in question are being passed off as other planes.
Luke 12: 1-5
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-04 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #51
59. Post 'em, Dulce!
And who here has the power to either kill the body or cast anyone into Gehenna? Will that be revealed to us as well?

Don't hold onto this pictures in darkness, Dulce - bring them into the light and proclaim them loudly! This is too important for you to tease - this is a matter of grave national importance! How can you claim to have evidence of the greatest plot against humanity ever and tease us with it?

You should be ashamed of yourself. Post them, Dulce!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-04 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy
Those planes have been spotted on NUMEROUS occasions both taking off and landing.
Photographs have been taken.
The damn planes are STILL FLYING.


To paraphrase Zuzu from It's a Wonderful Life:

Post 'em, Dulce.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-04 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. Consider this
Several of the you-know-whos
are sneering at the FAA registry database
simply because it purports to tell the true story
of the planes of September 11, 2001.

Which is more plausible?
That someone hacked into the FAA and placed erroneous data in a few key places?
Or that this agency,
is totally and utterly incompetent in all spheres?

The Federal Aviation Administration seemingly was the last to know about weaknesses in its computer systems and personnel clearances, making the air traffic control system vulnerable to hacking.
http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2000/0925/web-faa-09-28...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-04 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #48
53. First, I'd bet the newspaper article was in error with the dates
...like they were in the first few paragraphs of the "9/11 Timeline" that's touted so often here. In this case, I'd believe the 1992 date for his flight instructor license. Regardless, it doesn't really matter who typed the "8" instead of the "9" in error...he was certified.

You REALLY need to stop relying on government databases. They're notoriously inaccurate; especially the Social Security database.

Again, show me the pics, DD. I've heard claims that the plane's still flying, but I've never seen proof. Hell, I'll claim that it was all a plot by the Girl Scouts with the help PETA. I have pictures. Prove me wrong.

Look, believe what you want. You're way too far past the rational to hear contrary views. I've explained how the databases work. I've explained how RADAR works. I've explained how we do what we do on the ATC end. If you want to base some far-fetched theory on data that refutable, it's no skin off my nose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-04 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. Have you noticed
The more people explain how databases are never completely reliable, the more evidence that that's true is uncovered by DD.

The only problem is that this is not interpreted as evidence that bolsters reality (that databases are inaccurate), but it is interpreted as evidence that the conspiracy is ever widening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-04 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #54
55. I know. Seems they're trying to make both sides of the argument.
It's especially funny with this FAA registration database thing. It's been explained dozens of times how the removal of a registration works and some insist that it's proof that the plane is still flying.

If that WERE the case, wouldn't the FAA just remove the registrations? What would be the point in keeping them active if the planes were still flying and the government was trying to cover it up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-04 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #55
56. I like the SSDI scam
The social security death index CLEARLY states it is not accurate and someone must report the death to the SSDI for it be be in the database, yet somehow if the name is not in it they are supposedly walking around somewhere
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-04 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #56
61. I like the insurance scam better
One day, an American insurance company received a letter from a lady saying that unfortunately they have to cancel her husband's life insurance policy. 'We always paid it in time', she wrote, 'but since my dear husband's sudden death last year we have had some financial hardship; therefore, we would like not to pay it anymore'.

Curious isn't it,
how these 9:11 families and foundations
have received government (and private) funds
for their deceased relatives
who never ever made it to the Social Security Death Index.
And we do know that the Social Security Death Index IS FUNCTIONING.
And that death certificates were issued
despite the lack of actual physical proof of ever having lived.
And we are all very much aware that only death
(in certain cases)
http://www.atg.wa.gov/consumer/death/death_taxes.shtml
can prevent the IRS from tracking one down and extracting federal taxes.

IRS generally uses the SSN as the taxpayer identification number (TIN). Each taxpayer and spouse is required to enter his/her own SSN on the return. SSNs are also required for dependents being claimed on the tax returns. However, for people who are not otherwise eligible for an SSN, IRS will assign an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN).
When processing tax returns, IRS matches the name shown on the tax return with the name shown on the IRS database for that particular SSN. SSA Numident data is sent to IRS each week in the format IRS requested. This information is then used to update the IRS database. When IRS finds a return on which an SSN has been omitted or cannot be verified, they notify the taxpayer to contact SSA to determine the correct number or to obtain an SSN.
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/0/05de8d5a6d9d687485256e...

I guess that the IRS database
must have as many errors
as the FAA database and the SSDI database.
After all,
the IRS has access to the same copy-typists.
http://www.unclefed.com/Audit-Proofing/introduction.htm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-02-04 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #61
76. There you go, relying on government databases again...
In case you missed the other thousand posts saying the same thing:

THEY'RE OCCASIONALLY INNACURATE!

Statistically, I'd imagine they're not too bad...not as accurate as most private databases, of course, but not completely useless. The problem is that they deal with hundreds of millions of records and even a small statistical margin of error presents a lot of flawed individual records. Add to that the way the information is accumulated (the FAA database only removing registrations when paperwork is filed by the registration holder, for example) and I've no doubt you can find some erroneous information.

Records, however, don't make crashed planes fly, nor do they revive the dead. The planes are still in little pieces and the passengers are deceased, your database findings aside.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #76
81. Where are the pieces?
Where is the mush?

And as for the records,
we are all very much aware that
HUNDREDS of death certificates were given out
despite the COMPLETE LACK of body parts
or ANYTHING ELSE that would demonstrate that a human being had
A) actually existed and
B) actually died.

So we know that records can be faked.
And we know that plane records can be faked.
And we know that pilot credentials can be faked.
And we know that death certificates can be faked.
And we know that video can be faked.
And we have heard about Orson Wells 'War of th Worlds' broadcast
and we KNOW from watching Faux and reading the New York Times
that news can be faked.
And we know that election results can be faked.

But we do NOT know WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED
to the four planes of September 11
and we are asking yet again
WHERDY GO?

You can start your rebuttal by telling us
Where the damn black boxes are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #81
82. Straight ahead, DD!
I can see 'em squirming and spinning right now. What I don't expect to see are honest, responsive answers to your questions. If YOU do, please let me know. Call my house and ask for "Blue Boy." That'll be me, over in the corner holding my breath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. Well, they generally pick up the "pieces" and the "mush". It's unsightly.
...plus, they like to run tests on it...

I have no idea where the black boxes are. However, that doesn't prove any of the conspiracy theories, it's simply another unknown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #84
89. Proof? Of WHAT conspiracy theory, mercutio?
What is the evidentiary basis for your "belief" in the "Wacky Cave People Did It" Conspiracy Theory, and what evidence would you accept as proof that the "Wacky Cave People" didn't do it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #89
99. Reason, Abe. That's my basis...
As far as what I'd accept as proof that Al-Queda wasn't involved - bring me anything that proves otherwise. I'd be happy to consider it. I've seen nothing so far.

This doesn't mean that I buy the "official" version in toto. It does mean, however, that I've yet to see any proof that the basic statements of the "official" version are untrue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #99
101. We agree: the U.S. Gov't is complicit.
The U.S. created al Queda. The U.S. made Osama & the Cave Boys Patsies.
Therefore, the U.S. is complicit in 9-11. Tell your compadres the news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeadBroke Donating Member (173 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #81
93. There are times ...
... and I hate to say it DeluceDecorum, that some of your messages cross the line.

For example:

"And as for the records,
we are all very much aware that
HUNDREDS of death certificates were given out
despite the COMPLETE LACK of body parts
or ANYTHING ELSE that would demonstrate that a human being had
A) actually existed and
B) actually died."


Death certificates aren't, to borrow one of your expressions, 'given out' unless county and state criteria is met; and the except for the overwhelming number, the certificates issued in the wake of Trade Center attack was not a first time event or a precedent setting action.

There have been, for example shipping disasters, factory explosions, chemical incidents and similar catastrophic events where there are no remains. The county and state can, and will, issue certificates without remains; and I for one am very happy they do.

Take the 9 union tradesmen that died in the Trade Center on September 11, 2001 for example. Without death certificates their dependent children would go without health benefits, their beneficiaries could not access annuity funds, unpaid debt from annuity fund loans would become earned income to surviving spouses, educational grants or loans would be frozen, and no death benefits could be issued.

As a volunteer firefighter I have been a commander at chemical factory explosions where there are no remains of workers and had the awful task of informing anxious waiting families. What, in your opinion is an adequate alternative action to death certificates?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-04 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #55
64. Perhaps Colleen Rowley can answer that question
The resistance from Washington got so bad, she writes, that agents in her office joked that some FBI officials "had to be spies or moles, like Robert Hansen , who were actually working for Osama bin Laden."
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/27/time.fbi /

5) During the early aftermath of September 11th, when I happened to be recounting the pre-September 11th events concerning the Moussaoui investigation to other FBI personnel in other divisions or in FBIHQ, almost everyone's first question was "Why?--Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case? (I know I shouldn't be flippant about this, but jokes were actually made that the key FBIHQ personnel had to be spies or moles, like Robert Hansen, who were actually working for Osama Bin Laden to have so undercut Minneapolis' effort.)
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_whistleblower1.htm

At a conservative thinktank in downtown Washington, and across the Potomac at the Pentagon, FBI agents have begun paying quiet calls on prominent neoconservatives, who are being interviewed in an investigation of potential espionage, according to intelligence sources. Who gave Ahmed Chalabi classified information about the plans of the US government and military?
<snip>
Last week, Powell declared "it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that I'm disappointed, and I regret it". But who had "deliberately" misled him? He did not say. Now the FBI is investigating espionage, fraud and, by implication, treason.
A former staff member of the Office of Special Plans and a currently serving defence official, two of those said to be questioned by the FBI, are considered witnesses, at least for now. Higher figures are under suspicion. Were they witting or unwitting? If those who are being questioned turn out to be misleading, they can be charged ultimately with perjury and obstruction of justice. For them, the Watergate principle applies: it's not the crime, it's the cover-up.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1225600,...

BUSTED.
AND THOSE DAMN PLANES ARE STILL FLYING.

Which insurance company paid out on the hull of AA 77? Is it proven that four aircraft crashed or went missing on September 11 2001? Did two flight crews from each of American Airlines and United Airlines die that day? The pilots/flight attendants unions should be able to confirm this. Has anybody confirmed the existence of the American Airlines aircraft that has been reported sitting at an airport in Manitoba since early September, under heavy US military guard? The "eyewitnesses" may well be plants. .....
Who is Fox News protecting?
Cheers Len Clampett
Airline Transport Pilot (Retired)
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0203/S00101.htm

One other thing that is if great interest.
All four planes were insured.
The insurance companies have not been asked to pay one thin dime
and the insurance companies have banded together to choke the economies of foreign nations upon which the Coalition is dependent.

Since 11 September, many governments have stepped in to offer cover in areas deemed to risky by the insurance industry.
The UK government recently extended its terrorism insurance for commercial property to cover all risks, not merely fire and explosion, and it has vowed to cap the losses suffered by the industry at 30m per event and 60m per year.
Germany and France have both set up similar terror insurance pools with billions of euros in reserves.
Spain's state insurance facility guarantees private insurers' cover for extraordinary risks.
While the US wants to protect the insurance industry from losses greater than $10bn from a terrorist attack.
In addition, both the US and European governments have been forced to step in to offer cover for the airline industry after the insurance industry cancelled all third party war risk cover after the attacks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/world/2002/septembe...

The war risk cover was levied in October last year at the rate of $ 185 for a 20-foot container and $ 370 for a 40-foot container on all import and export cargoes from and to Pakistan. This, in turn, pushed the landed costs of all imports entering the country and all exports shipped from it.
The imposition of the heavy war risk surcharge by the London-based Joint War Committee of Underwriters (JWCU) which still keeps on putting a heavy pressure on the national economy was also discriminatory to Pakistan. It was imposed on all ships servicing six countries; Pakistan, Sri Lanka, UAE, Syria, Yemen and Egypt but only Pakistan and Sri Lanka were subjected to the highest rate of increase while India was excluded from it altogether.
http://www.pakistaneconomist.com/issue2002/issue20-21/i...

If the insurance companies HAD payed one thin dime,
then the insurance companies would OWN THE TITLES TO THE DAMN PLANES.
(The insurance companies OWN the Titanic, because they paid off all the claims.)
This was not the aim of the game.

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

Once the insurance companies owned the planes,
this would complicate matters EXTREMELY for the perpetrators of the scam
not to mention the voting public of the US,
and all the law-abiding people on the planet,
who can put their own personal sanctions on goods made in the US.

So the US military black budget paid for the chartered planes which vanished on September 11, 2001 and were presumed destroyed.
No, not those chartered planes,
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=September_...
http://www.saudiembassy.net/2004News/Statements/StateDe...
THESE ONES.

4:33:45 PM
It is reported that the second plane that hit the World Trade Centre earlier today had taken off at Newark.
The first had been hijacked at Boston although it had been CHARTERED for Los Angeles.
Newark airport, New Jersey, is just a few miles from lower Manhattan where the towers were situated.
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/09/11/story233...

3:50:27 PM
One of the planes that slammed into the World Trade Centre is believed to have been carrying 168 passengers and crew when it was hijacked.
The plane had been CHARTERED to fly from Boston to Los Angeles when it was hijacked and used as part of a major terrorist attack on the United States.
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/09/11/story233...

Wouldn't you like to know exactly WHO chartered that particular flight? (168/4 = 42)
And who the hell was on it?
And where it is today?
Anyhow, the fact that Flight 11 was chartered,
explains why it was NOT scheduled to fly a routine flight that day,
and it also explains why that chartered plane took off from a different gate.

WASHINGTON In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/...

So the cover stories were tweaked,
the airlines were HANDSOMELY reimbursed,
the ownership of the planes is not a matter for discussion,
and nobody said anything to the FAA database clerks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-04 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. Dulce, you disappoint me.
You claim to have pictures of the 9/11 planes still in operation, but you will not deliver.

When asked to produce these pictures, you change the subject back to something you think you understand - the FAA databases.

I would hate to think you said you had these pictures when you didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-04 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. bolo -- I thought for sure you'd try to refute what DD said.
I think Dulce's post is too important to ignore, and I'm sorry (but not surprised) that none of the "Wacky Cave People Did It" Conspiracy Theory supporters have tried to point out any disagreement with what DD said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-04 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #67
69. Abe, pay attention.
MercutioATC has done an excellent job in pointing out major inconsistencies between Dulce's conclusions and reality.

I still await Dulce's pictures, and my disappointment remains unabated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-04 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. bolo -- we're still waiting for that Poll you promised
DD has done an excellent job, despite the jibes and ridicule of people who have a hidden agenda.

You, on the other hand, have tried said that a poll of DUers would show that a majority of us support the "Wacky Cave People Did It" Conspiracy Theory.

I still await the day when you put up and conduct that poll, and my disappointment remains unabated. (though, not my surprise at your failure or refusal)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-04 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #70
71. And I'm still waiting for the poll you promised (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-02-04 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. To remind our audience of the truth
I asked Dulce to do the poll. Dulce refused and continues to refuse to do the poll.

Abe/Dulce in a later thread then proposed another poll for me to conduct, solely for the purpose of pretending that they had offered the poll first.

Yawn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-02-04 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #72
77. Sounds like someone is backing away from the shiny object.
You made the claim, not DD. I understand why you feel the need to try and separate "bolo" from the issue; but really - the truth is the truth.
You're afraid of what kind of results you'd get if you actually were to conduct a poll of DUers, aren't you? Or, do you still claim that "the vast majority" of DUers believe in the "Wacky Cave People Did It" Conspiracy Theory you and yours have been promoting all these years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-02-04 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. Relax, Abe. I made the poll.
Edited on Wed Jun-02-04 09:01 PM by MercutioATC
...it's in the lounge because it really didn't fit anyplace that got any decent traffic (this forum isn't heavily travelled by DU'ers).

Let's see what happens.

(on edit)

It was moved to GD. It should get some traffic there....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-02-04 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. Don't want to burst your bubble, but it's 9-1 in favor of Al-Queda
in the first 5 minutes.

I tried to word the poll objectively. If you disagree with the wording, please feel free to post your own poll and we'll compare results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 02:20 AM
Response to Reply #78
80. Right now, it's 65% to 35% in favor of Al Qaeda
With about 125 people responding.

So right now, I guess you could say that the majority of DUers who even care to respond to a poll believe that Al Qaeda is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

So Abe, Dulce, your apologies for speaking for a majority of DUers will be forthcoming?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #80
83. Couldn't find Poll, but results DON'T back YOUR claim
I couldn't find your poll, but based on what atc said, it's fatally flawed (asks the wrong question & isn't limited to DUers who've been here for at least three months).

That said, nevertheless, the "poll" shows that most DUers believe the Gov't IS behind 9-11, because al Queda is a U.S. Government creation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #83
85. Oh, PLEASE! (and a link)
The poll is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Really...Al-Queda being a U.S. Government creation (which is not entirely true) is different than the U.S. Government making 9/11 happen and simply blaming Al-Queda. The distinction isn't hard to see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #85
90. Your poll is worthless for anything except O.Story conspiracy pushers
Maybe you meant well, but since you're here to promote the Official Story, I doubt it. You really should just stick to your self-claimed expertise: atc stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #90
98. See my other reply, Abe. If you object to the wording, feel free to
post your own poll (which is what I told you yesterday).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #85
91. Your poll didn't ask what had been proposed that should be asked.
The question was supposed to be: Do you believe the Official Story Version of 9-11?

Your poll is a worthless sham that sounds like something cooked-up by Hill & Knowlton or the Rendon Group. (no, I don't believe you work at either place. no, that doesn't mean I believe you were necessarily hypnotized by them, either.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #91
97. So why didn't you take me up on my offer to let YOU post the poll?
After I made the poll, I told you where it was and said that if you objected to the wording, you could feel free to post a poll that said what you thought it should. Abe, you can't have it both ways. Either post a poll that YOU feel asks the question or stop bitching about mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #97
102. Chill, mercutio. I merely pointed out the problem with your Poll.
I don't have any desire to poll the uninformed public about 9-11. I do believe that if your "partner in crime" bolo had conducted the Poll HE said would show that a vast majority of DUers believe the Official Version Story ("Cave People Did It")...the results would NOT validate his claims. I also believe THAT is exactly why BOLO didn't conduct the Poll that HE proposed taking.

Relax. With Exlax. Or whatever makes you feel better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-04-04 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #102
104. Unfortunately, in a public forum
...the records remain available for us to reference, Abe.

Here's the original poll with the original wager:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

That's me asking Dulce to conduct a poll. Dulce refused. Not long after, you and Dulce proposed a poll to me. Since you ignored mine, I ignored yours. Only you have the temerity to try and maintain that I shirked the poll.

And only you could claim that I claimed the poll would "show that a vast majority of DUers believe the Official Story Version."

Here's the text of the original poll proposal:

To claim that everyone here at Democratic Underground believes your litany of Flight 77 denial and other nonsense is quite a mouthful.

The planes which have ALL survived September 11?
The other buildings in the WTC which collapsed for no good reason?
The passenger lists with no Arab names?
The "hijackers" who are still alive?
the Pentagon that had no hole?
The Penta-victims with unburned hair?
The Penta-doctors who swear that DU does not kill?
The pilots without proper credentials?
The passengers who are still not dead?
The passengers who died BEFORE September 11?
The people who are stonewalling the investigation?
The cronies who are running the investigation?
The mercenaries who are making a killing in Iraq?
The mediawhores who lie about the presence of WMD?


As a matter of fact, I'd bet that you couldn't get 50% of DU posters to subscribe to 50% of that list. Why you continue to post here that Democratic Underground believes all of these things is beyond me.

In fact, I propose a wager, if the moderators will allow it to happen.

Start a poll in General Discussion, Dulce. Give that exact list of items, and ask people what percentage of those statements they believe. I'd suggest the percentages of 0%, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, and 100%.

Here's the wager: If you can get 10% of DU members to say that they agree to 90% or 100% of those statements, I will leave the Democratic Underground forever.

42017 user registrations since January 2001

Let's round it down to 4000, making it even easier for you. If you can get 4000 DU members to say they agree with 90% or 100% of those statements, I will leave the Democratic Underground forever.

Here's the catch:

If 10% of DU members say that they believe either 0% or 10% of those statements, you leave DU forever.

If you're not willing to take this wager, I would expect you to stop speaking for DU as a whole, since you're not willing to ask DU exactly what they think on the subject.

Agreed?


And here's an example of how that would work, from my very next post in that thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

As you will see from the above link, I agree with about 25% of the above bolded statements, so my own position would be a vote to keep Dulce and myself here. As far as this "vast majority" you claim I was looking for, I was stating that I would leave DU forever if even 10% of registered DUers believed 90 - 100% of those statements. That's hardly a majority. From even my example, I was expecting to find a broad spectrum of beliefs about 9/11. Nobody believes everything the government has said about 9/11.

But certain facts remain undeniable: four planes hijacked by al-Qaeda operatives were crashed into the WTC towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. Several buildings in the WTC complex then collasped as a result of the plane impacts and subsequent fires. Assent to these facts is not and never has been support of the Bush administration. It is support of truth and reality.

My point was arguing against Dulce's penchant for stating that DU as a whole believes everything that Dulce types. This is not true. I asked Dulce to put her money where her mouth was, and Dulce balked.

The same way Dulce is balking on the pictures she claims to have of a plane supposedly used in the 9/11 attack still flying.

Post 'em, Dulce. Prove me wrong with a single JPEG.

You know you wanna do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-04-04 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #104
106. Just as soon
as you show me the mush
and tell me
WHERDY GO?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-02-04 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #69
73. Thanks for the vote of confidence, Bolo, but some people can't see
reason. My goal is less to convince the hardcore conspiracy theorists than to let the more receptive see another argument based on experience, not conjecture. I have yet to see anybody in the aviation industry support these theories (and there have been pilots, commercial pilots, who've posted here).

I'll keep trying to present the other side of the argument. Thanks for your posts...it's nice to see some like-minded people here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeadBroke Donating Member (173 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-04 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #54
57. Overlooked
There's one DD's overlooked: ISO. They list buildings that burned down as still standing. One of the largest databases here in the US is the one ISO, the Insurance Services Organization, maintains for commercial properties. It lists every commercial building that has fire insurance.

Fire insurance premiums are based on several factors, including the local fire departments rating. That fire department rating is based on a formula that takes into account the number of apparatus and firefighters responding, the age and condition of the apparatus, the hose and other equipment aboard, the training levels of the firefighters, the departments records keeping, the municipal water supply and hydrant system, and dispatching. The higher the fire departments rating, the lower the fire insurance premiums.

ISO maintains a database for all commercial properties that includes the ownership and tenant names, and all in a unique numerical code - the size of the structure in square feet and number of stories, the buildings primary and secondary uses, its design classifications (wood frame, protected steel frame for example), its fire detection, protection and suppression (sprinkler) systems, the number of daytime occupants, and the amount of water in GPM, Gallons Per Minute the fire department must deliver to the structure in the event of a fire. That numerical code can be very difficult to decipher, especially to first time visitors and to those unfamiliar with construction and building terminologies.

ISO reviews and modifies this database every quarter. As a firefighter charged with records keeping duties I access the ISO database for building owner names and addresses that are required for filing response reports NFIRS which I described in another response. I also use the database to help the fire chiefs preplan fires for each structure. Fire departments preplan fires; by that I mean they will do a desktop drill for a fire in a structure and address and plan in advance for special problems (such as truss roofs or hazardous material contents) or special needs (such as dead end hydrants or low water pressure areas or radio dead spots).

A rating evaluation for a fire department is usually every 10 years. Its a long time between ratings, but its a volume issue, lots of fire departments a long process and few inspectors; and the appeal and review process causes setbacks and delays.

One of the ISO tests during that rating evaluation will require the fire department to respond to the municipalitys third largest structure and then flow the required GPM from hydrants in the immediate area.

My check earlier today of the ISO database shows they are still listing a building destroyed by arson for profit 6 years ago as our 3rd largest structure. Its an empty lot full of weeds, but ISO lists it as a standing structure and our 3rd largest.

Is listing a building that burned down 6 years ago as standing and the 3rd largest a mistake, human error, or a policy and procedure? Its actually policy and procedure because there are still insurance claims and lawsuits pending. Makes sense to me; but to someone without knowledge of the policy and procedure it can be mistakenly viewed as bad record keeping or something more sinister.

ISO is a huge, HUGE database that is constantly updated and always monitored; but yet it lists burned down buildings and empty lots as standing structures.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-04 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. That's because the buildings are still standing somewhere...
...they just changed the address and moved them

:silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-04 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #58
60. Shiwan Khan
must be
the terrorist mastermind
behind the ghost building scenarios of which you speak
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20...
and there is only one man in New York who can defeat him.

Please don't ask me who Shiwan Khan is or where he came from.
.... All I know is Shiwan Khan has the power to hypnotize virtually anyone he wants, and is not limited to merely "fogging men's minds." Cranston finds Shiwan in the Monolith Hotel, which Khan has hidden by hypnotizing every single person in New York City, even the guy who burned my white dress shirt and refused to pay for it."
http://www.angelfire.com/mn/nn/Shadow.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/078321958...

Perhaps Shiwan Khan
is more closely related to Abdul Qadeer Khan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3343621.stm
than is commonly supposed.

This is NOT a joke.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/print.jsp?id=ns9999158...
And it is quite horrific to see this type of information
http://www.qis.net/~jimjr/misc62.htm
left lying around the place
http://www.hvk.org/articles/1101/138.html
where it can embarrass the entire contents of the Pentagon.

In any case,
it is refreshing to see just how seriously the comments of DulceDecorum are taken
by the you-know-whos.

Perhaps one day,
the same courtesy will be afforded to the men and women of the FAA
who do their jobs
(and maintain the FAA databases)
DESPITE interference
from high-level Benedict Arnolds.

Aviation consultant Mike Boyd puts it bluntly: "We're dealing with a systemic problem," contends the president of The Boyd Group in Evergreen, Colo. "It is not a problem of the inspectors being too busy.... The FAA is badly managed and politically corrupted." As evidence, he cites the February 1996 case of an FAA inspector who was told to bury a report suggesting that ValuJet be shut down. Three months later, the airline's Flight 592 buried itself in the Florida Everglades.
http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3094/is...

Management Personnel at United Airlines
Corruptly deprived crew members of the legally required periodic and remedial training, which then played a key role in many brutal air disasters (as documented in sequestered FAA reports and in the third edition of Unfriendly Skies).
Documented long-standing pattern of falsifying government-required records to fraudulently indicate that federal air safety training and competency checks were completed, when in fact they were not.
Threatening federal inspectors, warning that they would be transferred, if they continued to file reports and act upon safety violations and record falsification. In this way, the airline experiencing one major fatal air disaster after the other, blocked the federal government from carrying out it's air safety responsibilities. The results were hundreds of needless deaths in fraud-related air disasters.
Continuing the obvious crash-causing air safety and criminal violations, year after year, and crash after crash, despite recognition of the links between the two matters.
Blamed their own pilots for causing specific air disasters when it was United Airlines and FAA management who prior fraud and corruption made the crash-causing problems possible. (Read the third edition of Unfriendly Skies for details.)
http://www.unfriendlyskies.com/partners_in_death_unf.ht...

United Airlines DC-8 crash into New York City, the world worst air disaster at that time, to be followed by another world worst aviation disaster in that city occurring on September 11, 2001. Both crashes were preceded by federal air safety inspectors reporting major air safety problems and corruption. In the earlier crash, inspectors reported the airline was not providing the legally required training, was falsifying its records to corruptly indicate the major training and competency checks of crew members were being performed, combined with FAA management destroying inspectors reports, warning inspectors not to make reports, retaliating against inspectors who did make reports. This crash is identified in the first chapter of Unfriendly Skies. Federal inspectors had reported the problems and the need for immediate corrective actions that were blocked by FAA management.
http://www.defraudingamerica.com/list_of_corruption_rel...

The Role Of Adult Men and Women In the United States
http://www.unfriendlyskies.com/faa_corruption.html

More at:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=+site...

http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/04-11-02/0...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=+site...

http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/am/show_mag.cgi?pub=am...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-04 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #60
62. I'm not dignifying your mass hypnosis statement with a thoughtful
response.

As far as the FAA being broken, I agree wholeheartedly. NATCA, the controllers' union and the IG have been saying this for years. The FAA has recently (within the last 2 years) been put under a new system in an attempt to streamline the operation and fix its problems.

Russ Chew, the new CEO of the ATO (Air Traffic Organization) is working to, among other things, reduce the number of "levels" in the air traffic portion of the FAA from 11 to 6. This move alone will save a considerable amount of money and result in a more flexible operation that is better able to deal with issues and serve the customer.

What many fail to realize is that the FAA is a large organization. I'm a controller, so I have a pretty good understanding of the ATO. The other divisions of the FAA have nothing to do with what I do for a living and operate as their own entities, for the most part. To draw a parallel with the private sector, the FAA is a large corporation. ATO makes car parts. Other divisions make computers, process medical claims and market baby food. We're all distinct divisions that deal with aviation, but in very different ways.

The only constant that I've seen is that the inefficiencies nearly always exist at the upper management level. The employees who actually do the work are generally extremely dedicated people who want the system to work.

Nothing I've seen points to real corruption in the FAA, just a lot of bad decisions and the inevitable lack of efficiency you get when dealing with any large bureaucracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-04 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. Standard excuse for 9-11 -- also useful for FAA explanations
"Nothing I've seen points to real corruption in the FAA, just a lot of bad decisions and the inevitable lack of efficiency you get when dealing with any large bureaucracy."

All that PLUS "bad" intelligence, borderline criminal negligence -- and the All-Purpose "Evil Doers".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-04 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. That is a failure that calls for heads to roll
An article in the Los Angeles Times by Eric Malnic (8 Oct. 2000) cited a nearly secret meeting of the top FAA officials in a Holiday Inn meeting room in the Washington D.C. area. The meeting was strange in itself with all the offices in the world in Washington D.C. available. In that meeting, the FAA heads discussed the miserable state of affairs in the agency. Yet they left the meeting to perpetrate more of the very same treatment which they acknowledged as being totally unacceptable. Malnic was able to get them to admit even their subsequent failures as being factual. Still, no change except for the worse.

While Malnic's article did an excellent job of focusing on the continuing reality of crew fatigue, hidden from Malnic was the crew fatigue factor in the Gander DC-8 crash, the Houston DC-9 belly-in and the CS-985 incident. The obscuration of these events testify to the clever ability of the FAA to hide major factors in incidents and accidents. There is still more to that story.

The immediate history (i.e., Alaska 506, Pro Air and Sun Pacific, CS-985, etc.) following that 'secret' meeting in Washington tells one message - someone outside the Federal Government is actually calling the shots.
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/proair.htm

October 7, 2000
WASHINGTON -- About 20 top Federal Aviation Administration officials sequestered themselves in a windowless Holiday Inn conference room three months ago to sort out a mess of their own making.
"We're here because we're in big trouble," Nick Lacey, the FAA's director of flight standards service, told the somber group. "Jane Garvey (the FAA chief) is in big trouble. ... All of you ... all of us.
<snip>
Three days after a fatal American Airlines crash last year that raised questions about pilot fatigue, FAA Administrator Garvey had promised to "rigorously" enforce FAA rules designed to make sure planes are not flown by exhausted crews.
Nonetheless, Lacey said, the FAA top brass had just found out "that a major carrier with the worst record (of compliance) has not even started to enforce that rule." And, to make matters worse, the carrier was American Airlines.
"That is a failure that calls for heads to roll," he said. "We have failed to do our job."
http://www.aircargoinsanity.com/documents/latimes-octob...

"The absolute truth is I have not been informed of any breaches in security that took place on Sept. 11," said Susan Baer, general manager at Newark International Airport in New Jersey, where one of the hijacked planes took off. She echoed similar assessments by law enforcement and airline industry officials of the hijackers' success at also boarding planes at Boston and Virginia airports.
<snip>
Once through security, the hijackers made their way to their gates--boarding a mobile shuttle at Dulles, ambling along the corridors at the other airports--and approached gate agents. As agents typed their names into airline computers and called up their reservations, each also was checked against a little-known but highly sophisticated database.

This is CAPS, for "computer-assisted passenger screening." Developed in the mid-1990s by Northwest Airlines and deployed by most major domestic carriers by 1998, CAPS is nothing less than a profiling program designed to distinguish passengers who pose no threat to safety from those who might.
CAPS has its limitations. Among other things, because its profiling criteria are based on previous hijackings, it missed the hijackers--a flaw that is already being addressed, according to people familiar with the program. Nevertheless, CAPS is regarded by security professionals as perhaps one of the most powerful tools in the aviation safety arsenal. Yet, as with so many other elements of the system, it has been employed ineffectually.
CAPS is designed to be triggered every time a customer purchases a ticket on a major U.S. carrier. In the case of the hijackers, it probably noted that (as detailed in an FBI document obtained by The Times) all five suspects on United Flight 175 had purchased one-way tickets. Of those boarding American Flight 11 at Logan, all had made their reservations within two days of each other, four had paid with Visa cards and one with cash.
Of those boarding American Flight 77 at Dulles, two had reserved their round-trip flights in August using the airline's Web site, purchasing their tickets with cash 10 days later at Baltimore-Washington International Airport, and recording their frequent-flier program numbers. Two made their reservations via the online service Travelocity and paid for them, apparently online, with Visa. (Ticketing information on the hijackers of United Flight 93 from Newark is not known.)

CAPS would examine these facts and many others. The specific data collected are among the most closely held secrets in aviation security, but it is understood that they would probably include passengers' addresses and flying histories, whether they were traveling with a family or alone and possibly their national origin. Each piece of information is given a numerical score to be tallied.
http://www.d113.lake.k12.il.us/dhs/library/Class_links/...

So WHAT if the FAA ITSELF says that it is incompetent and corrupt?
It still has MercutioATC Golden Seal of Approval.
No beheadings allowed.
And speaking of beheadings....

The thought crosses one's mind that Berg might have been the one who bought the 9/11 hijacker's airline ticket from the OU library computer terminal. I have not been able to ascertain whether he was ever an OU library employee. Most likely, he would have been a temp.
http://www.rense.com/general53/strang.htm

An Airline Ticket for a 9/11 Hijacker Was Purchased from the OU Library Computer
Former Senator David Boren is currently president of the University of Oklahoma in Norman, where I reside. In the fall of 2001, I was talking to an OU library employee who told me that she was present when an FBI agent was interviewing her colleague. From this encounter she learned that an OU library computer terminal had been used for an online purchase of an airline ticket for a 9/11 hijacker who was on the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania. She also told me that the person who made the purchase had not been a hijacker. Contrary to expectation, he was a white American male, but he knew he was assisting the hijacking operation.
http://members.aol.com/mpwright9/sting.html

Computer flags hijackers
In a separate report Tuesday, the 10-member bipartisan commission revealed that nine of the 19 hijackers had been flagged by the Federal Aviation Administration's computer passenger screening system before boarding their flights. The system alerts airport security screeners to more thoroughly check passengers who buy one-way tickets or pay with cash. FAA procedures at the time called for the luggage of the "selectees" to be screened for explosives.
According to the report, three of the five hijackers aboard Flight 11 were designated selectees by the computer system, known as CAPPS, but one hijacker had checked no luggage and screeners scanned the bags of the other two for explosives. All five hijackers aboard American Flight 77 -- which crashed into the Pentagon -- were selectees and their luggage was held before they were confirmed on the aircraft, and no further screening was done.
One hijacker aboard United Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, was flagged and his bag was screened for explosives before being loaded onto the plane, the report said. No terrorists aboard United Flight 175, which crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center, were flagged.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronic...

"Nothing I've seen points to real corruption in the FAA, just a lot of bad decisions and the inevitable lack of efficiency you get when dealing with any large bureaucracy."
-- MercutioATC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-04 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #65
68. Excellent work DD
You have uncovered what millions already know - many government agencies can be inept, corrupt, off-track, bloated, bureaucracies that fail to perform their stated goals in a efficient manner.

Welcome to reality.

What does government ineptness or corruption have to do with the planes you claim are still in service, and when are you going to provide some pictures?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #68
87. LARED vs MercutioATC
LARED seems to think that the FAA is corrupt.
MercutioATC, with his "years of experience" does not think so.
I guess that those outside the FAA regard it to be problematic
but those inside remain blissfully unaware of the need to mend their evil ways.
Here is a classic example:

This is part of the flight history of N591UA on September 10 and September 11, 2001.

United Airlines Flight 78 (N591UA) arrived at Newark International from San Francisco at 07:01 (7:01AM) on September 10, 2001.
http://www.bts.gov/cgi-bin/ntda/oai/DetailedStatistics/...

United Airlines Flight 0075 (N591UA) left Newark International for San Francisco at 18:30 (6:30PM) on September 10, 2001.
http://www.bts.gov/cgi-bin/ntda/oai/DetailedStatistics/...

NO problem so far.
Now, we are assured that United Airlines Flight 175 (N591UA) left Newark International for San Francisco at 08:01 (8:01AM) on September 11, 2001.
http://www.bts.gov/cgi-bin/ntda/oai/DetailedStatistics/...

OK, so far so good.
But when did the plane (N591UA) return from San Francisco to Newark?
It had to get back from the San Fran 6PM flight in order to leave Newark on the doomed flight.

Apparently NOTHING from United Airlines actually arrived at Newark International on September 11, 2001. Even in the wee hours of the morning BEFORE the hijackings.
http://www.bts.gov/cgi-bin/ntda/oai/DetailedStatistics/...
This is actually not all that surprising considering that there were reports of a fire having taking place at Newark International around noon on September 10, 2001.

OK then, lets have another look at that September 10 page. Maybe it got back before midnight.
Yes that is cutting it close for a return trip,
and yes it does look like it took over 10 hours
from the 7AM arrival at Newark to the 6PM departure for San Fran the previous day,
but what the heck, let's have another look anyway....

Well folks, it looks like the United Airlines plane (N591UA) left San Francisco at 23:00 (11:00PM) for Newark International on the night of September 10, 2001.
UA 09/10/2001 0078 N591UA EWR 23:00
http://www.bts.gov/cgi-bin/ntda/oai/DetailedStatistics/...
And it appears that United Airlines Flight 78 (N591UA) was airborne for 279 minutes. (2 hours 39 minutes)
http://www.bts.gov/cgi-bin/ntda/oai/DetailedStatistics/...

Ooop!
There it is!!
UA 09/10/2001 0642 N591UA ORD 0:00
http://www.bts.gov/cgi-bin/ntda/oai/DetailedStatistics/...

My mistake.
Wrong page.
if the plane San Fran at 11PM and was in the air for over two hours, then it must have arrived at Newark in the wee hours of the morning of September 11, 2001.
http://www.bts.gov/cgi-bin/ntda/oai/DetailedStatistics/...

Damn plane NEVER ARRIVED.

But but, I distinctly remember seeing somewhere that united Airlines Flight 642 from Chicago O'Hare (ORD) pulled into Newark on September 10 at ooh, I guess it didn't.
http://www.bts.gov/cgi-bin/ntda/oai/DetailedStatistics/...

But but, look, see United Flight 642 (N591UA) did too leave Chicago O'Hare (ORD) for Newark at 10:28 (10:28AM) on September 10, 2001.
Scroll down and see for yourself.
http://www.bts.gov/cgi-bin/ntda/oai/DetailedStatistics/...

Back to the drawing board.
United Airlines Flight 642 (N591UA) from Chicago O'Hare to Newark on September 10, 2001 did not spend anytime in the air at all.

So what do we have so far?
Confusion.
By my reckoning:
One particular United Airlines plane (N591UA) arrived at Newark from San Francisco at 7:01AM on September 10.
It then also left Chicago for Newark at 10:28AM on September 10.
Then there was a fire at Newark International and flights were not allowed to land there for some time.
At 6:30PM on September 10, the same exact plane left Newark and arrived in San Francisco at 11PM. Then it vanished again but reappeared at Newark in time for takeoff at 8:01AM on September 11, 2001.
Therefore, between 7AM and 10AM on September 10, it was in two places at the same time (flying from Newark to San Fran and also from Chicago to Newark.)
Between the hours of 2AM (11PM plus 279 minutes) and 8Am on September 11, it did not exist.

Oh well, why should we worry?
MercutioATC keeps assuring us that government databases aren't worth crap. And we have his word that that particular United Airlines plane (N591UA) eventually took off with passengers and crashed into itsy bitsy pieces and that some Arabs are to blame for all this.
The Bureau of Transportation Statistics is no match for MercutioATC.

BTS' data collection programs for aviation and motor carrier information are authorized under separate legislation enacted when the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) and Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) were terminated. Both of these programs are mandatory data collections.
http://www.bts.gov/about /

LARED, you had asked:
What does government ineptness or corruption have to do with the planes you claim are still in service, and when are you going to provide some pictures?

I trust that the data above answers the first part of your question.
We now have no idea what planes were actually where.
All we can be certain of is that the United Airlines data being reported into the BTS database is incorrect and high level officials are aware of this.
The FAA and BTS both together, are telling a completely different story from the PNAC-inspired crowd that are rapidly retaining lawyers, or running for cover at the present time.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12357-20...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12440-20...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-416...

As for the second part of your question, LARED,
pictures are of no use to you.
You will simply scream that they have been photo-shopped. Furthermore, if your sources are anywhere near as good as mine,
you know damn well why I am reluctant to post photos of that particular plane at this particular time. And if you have no idea what I am referring to, then it is just as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #87
92. Dulce vs. Dulce
First Dulce claims to have pictures.

Then Dulce promises to post the pictures "in good time".

Now Dulce reneges on posting the pictures.

Now Dulce could actually have pictures, but you know what I think, Dulce?

YA GOT NOTHIN'.

Post 'em, Dulce. Prove me wrong. Prove you actually have the pictures. I will defend to the death your right to publish information that actually convicts the Bush Administration in any misdeed whatsoever.

Post 'em, Dulce. Tell the truth and shame the devil.

Post 'em, Dulce.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-04-04 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #92
105. OK then,
I got nuthin'.

And you ain't about to see that nuthin' anytime soon.

(Who do you take me for?
Bloody Bob Novak?)

MoVEON.
Go drown your Soros elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-04-04 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #105
108. Heeheeheee
"I've got pictures but I'm not showing them to anybody"


...and I've perfected cold fusion but I'm not telling how...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-02-04 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #65
75. Nice attempt to twist my words...
I never gave the FAA my "Golden Seal of Approval". In fact, I've been very forthcoming about how the inefficiencies in relaying information up the chain of command probably added to the response time on 9/11. I'm not claiming that the FAA's procedures work all of the time, or even that they can't be improved upon. I'm saying that the system is as it is. Delays that seem outrageous to the layperson that thinks we call NORAD to scramble fighters from our sectors are less mysterious when the facts are presented. We don't have any direct access to NORAD from the sector (a fact that's lost when irresponsible journalists insist that we have a "panic button"). The information may well take 10-20 minutes to get to the person who calls the pilots.

That, however, is an example of a broken system, not a corrupt system. Changes have been made. Additional changes are pending. I know you're interested, so I'll keep you updated, as I'm permitted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-02-04 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #63
74. Actually, Abe, it really all comes down to the people we elect.
They're the people who make changes. They're the ones who appoint the officials that oversee the systems. Find me a government agency that's NOT inefficient (the same holds true for most large private companies).

The FAA is just another large government agency. It's not the worst managed, not the best. In Air Traffic alone there are 11 levels of administration between the controller and the Administrator. That's inefficiency by design. Is the system broken? Yes. Are there changes taking place to reduce the inefficiencies? Yes. Is the FAA corrupt? Not any more than any other agency and, due to recent intense scrutiny, less than many.

It's easy to point fingers. It's harder to specify the "corruption", especially when you have no knowledge of how the system works. I don't pretend to speak for the military, but I really see no corruption or complicity involved on the FAA's part as far as 9/11 is concerned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #48
86. Regarding Victor Saracini's records...
In your post you stated:

<<begin quote>>
Victor John Saracini
Med First 4/2001 Must have available glasses for near vision
DOI 2/15/94 ATP multi engine land commercial single engine private single engine
A/A320 A/B747-4 A/B757 A/B767 A/CA-212
DOI 5/20/1992 Flight instructor airplane single multi engine land instrument aeroplane
DOI 4/14/1986 Flight engineer turbojet-powered
DOI 1/30/1984 Ground instructor advanced instrument
DOI 10/22/1983 Mechanic airframe power-plant
http://162.58.35.241/aadatabase/login.asp

From the media and the FAA airman registry database,
we learn that Victor Saracini met his wife Ellen Hildebrande Saracini,
while he was working as a flight instructor at Louisiana Tech from 1980-82
despite the fact that FAA records clearly demonstrate that
he did not get his flight instructors license until 1992,
which is over ten years later.
Saracini first FAA cert is that of a Mechanic airframe power-plant and was issued on 10/22/1983 which is one whole year after he gave up teaching at Louisiana Tech.

<<end quote>>

The FAA airman registry database does not list the original dates of the certificates, but instead lists the most recent version of each certificate. The Mechanic Airframe power-plant certificate for Mr. Saracini was last issued on 10/22/1983.

I checked this by running queries on several people I know who have been instructors for years, and the certificate listings for them are only the most recent ones.

This is logical, because if Mr. Saracini stopped being an instructor, he would have had little reason to keep his certificates up to date.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #86
88. Really?
That is really strange,
because when I accessed the ACTUAL FAA airman registry
- as opposed to any other pilot database -
the FAA specifically said DOI next to every single certificate and the FAA explained that DOI stood for Date Of Issue.

(In the case of the Medical Certificate,
since it is based on a variable,
only the most recent one is considered valid.
An expired Medical Certificate is equal to No certificate at all and lack of a current Medical Certificate voids all flying certificates.)

But I am sure you know more
about Victor Saracini and his records and the Date Of Issue
than the Federal Aviation Administration that gave out the certificate in the first place.
I hear they are quite corrupt and cannot tell their rudder from their joystick.

I wonder what mn9driver has to say about all this.
He does claim to own one of them thar pilot certificates, you know.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #88
94. Regarding Certificates...
For all certificates, only the most recent one is valid. The reason the FAA lists a Date Of Issue for a certificate is because every time someone is recertified, they get a new certificate. The old one (even if it hasn't expired) is no longer valid. There's no reason for the FAA to keep track of all the old certificates.

I used to handle a lot of FAA paperwork regarding instructor and pilot certification, so I am familiar with the procedures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. "so I am familiar with the procedures"
Perpare to be barraged with manifold reasons why even though you know the procedures you are wrong, lying, a paid spinner, etc, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #95
96. That might happen...
I suggest that those who question what I found should either check their own FAA records, or find a friend who is in aviation and check theirs. I'm not going to post my friend's records online because that's not my property.

Don't trust me? Check for yourself.

LARED - wouldn't it be nice if we DID get paid for posting here? I might be able to upgrade from a dialup... :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #96
100. Welcome to the trenches, AZCat. It's nice to see yet another poster with
real experience who can cast some light here.

...if I was half of what I've been called here, I'd be retired by now :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #100
103. Hang in there, mercutio, bush might yet do a Reagan.
If you really are a non-military AT employee, you just might get your wish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-04-04 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
107. NEW THREAD
In keeping with tradition,
and bowing to the wishes of the dial-up crowd,
we shall continue the discussion on

The Pilots and the Planes: Part 2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 18th 2014, 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC