Flight 175: quite a mysterious flight ...

[John Doe II]

What’s so mysterious about Flight 175 ?


Flight 175 was certainly the least mysterious of all four flights on 9/11. Literally billons of people saw it crash into the WTC. Flight 175 was the only plane that was to be seen live on television.
Also the last minute of this flight seem to contain no mystery:
At 8:40 happened the last transmission from UA 175. It stated that they had heard a suspicious transmission (most likely from Flight 11). Minutes later it turned southwest without clearance from air traffic control. At 8:47 it’s transponder code changed, and then changed again.
(Commission Report, p. 21)

Also Michael McCormick, the FAA's New York air traffic manager had nothing mysterious to tell in “a press conference in which air traffic controllers in New York, Boston, and Washington, D.C., made their first extensive public comments since the attacks.”
(Boston Globe, 8/13/02)

Mr. MIKE McCORMICK (New York Air Traffic Manager): We tracked that aircraft as it turned southbound and then back northeast-bound, back toward Manhattan. I assumed at that point that that target of that aircraft was, in fact, the World Trade Center.
ORR: Controllers tracked the hijacked jet for 11 agonizing and helpless minutes.
Mr. McCORMICK: For those 11 minutes, I knew, we knew, what was going to happen, and that was difficult.
(CBS, 8/13/02)

''Probably one of the most difficult moments in my life was the 11 minutes from the point I watched that aircraft when we first lost communication to the point that aircraft hit the World Trade Center.
(Boston Globe, 8/13/02)
(Ottawa Citizen, 8/13/03)

So contrary to Flight 77 which disappeared completely from the radar there was never a big problem with Flight 175. And the Commission Report states:
9:20 UA headquarters aware that Flight 175 had crashed into WTC (p. 32)
Unfortunately this is simply not true. To put it mildly.
While the confirmation that Flight 11, 93 and 77 crashed didn’t take long United Airlines seemed to have big problems to figure out what was going on with their Flight 175.
So in the ABC Special News Report from 11:00 – 12:00 United Airlines is quoted:

“United is also saying now that they are concerned about a further flight that apparently is still missing, flight 175. It is a Boeing 767. It was scheduled from Boston to Los Angeles. That flight apparently is still unaccounted for, according to officials from United.”
(ABC, 9/11/01 11:00 – 12:00)

So at least two hours after Flight 175 crashed into the WTC and being no mystery to the controllers UA still has no clue where his airplane is!


And things will become even stranger:
UA confirms that Flight 175 crashed but ….:
“United Airlines Flight 175: A Boeing 767 crashes. The flight was bound from Boston to Los Angeles. It carried 56 passengers, two pilots and seven flight attendants. The airline would not say where that plane crashed.”
(Seattle Times, 9/11/01)
(San Francisco Chronicle, 9/11/01)
(AP, 9/11/01)
(Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9/11/01)
(ABC, 9/11/01 11:00 – 12:00)

Uups! Now they know that it crashed but not where or don’t want to say it??


So, excuse me dear Commissioners, United Airlines was certainly NOT aware at 9:20 that Flight 175 had crashed into the WTC.

The first one to mention that Flight 175 crashed is NBC minutes before noon. (Until 11:30 they only had three confirmed flights that had been involved in 9/11).
CNN states on September 12, 2001 that United Airlines confirmed at 11:59 that Flight 175 had crashed. (The other three flights had been already confirmed long before).
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack /

So, it took almost three hours to figure that out.


But the mystery hasn’t finished here:

The first guess which airplane had hit the second tower was not Flight 175 but surprise surprise:
Let’s switch on the television:

“So we believe that the two aircraft have flown into the Trade Towers, both belonged to American Airlines, and they had both been hijacked and there were 90 passengers and crew on the first plane and 60 passengers and crew on the second plane.”
ABC, 9/11/01 10:00

So, the first information was that AA 77 had hit the WTC (and not the Pentagon).
Two hours after the second attack:

“And Flight 77, a Boeing 757 offering from Washington Dulles to Los Angeles with 58 passengers and four flight attendants and two pilots, may--that--that--that aircraft is a little more uncertain. That is not a huge--it's a big aircraft, a 757, but we have--we're not certain whether that's the one that went into the Pentagon or whether it's one of the other aircraft that went into the Twin Trade Towers.”
ABC, 11:00

Three hours after the second attack:

“We have the two at the trade towers in New York City, we're not certain but we believe both of those are somehow connected to American Airlines but we're not sure of that, absolutely sure.”
ABC, 12.00

Four hours after the second attack the confusion reaches its climax:

LYNN SHERR: That--what--what you're seeing is the north tower. Behind it there's a second identical tower, as you know. That plane crashed right into it. All morning we have been told by American Airlines, among others, that that flight, that airplane, was actually American Airlines Flight 77 going out of Dulles to Los Angeles. We were told 58 passengers, four flight attendants, two pilots on that plane. It was hijacked at 9:03--I'm sorry, it was hijacked right after takeoff. Crashed into the tower at 9:03 AM.

JENNINGS: Let me stop you right there, Lynn, because I just--I have had different information so I'm going to rely on you here. You now believe the American Airlines Flight 77 which took off from Dulles on its way to Los Angeles, crashed into the Trade towers, not into the Pentagon?

SHERR: We were told that originally. What I'm about to tell you is the FBI is now saying that that's the one that went into the Pentagon. The FBI spokesperson is saying that the flight that went into World Trade Center tower number two, that's south tower, was, in fact United Airlines 175, a Boeing 767 that left Boston for LAX, departed at 7:58 AM this morning; 56 passengers, two pilots, seven flight attendants. This is confusing, I apologize. We are getting two different answers to our questions.
(ABC, 9/11/01 1 p.m. – 2 p.m.)


And although NBC reported “already” at 11:59 that Flight 175 crashed into the WTC this confusion between Flight 77 and 175 is not simply a problem of ABC. Just two further examples:


“We know for sure at least 92 people were aboard American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 676--excuse me, 767, en route from Boston to Los Angeles, which crashed into the building. Another 64 were aboard the second flight that crashed into the building, American Airlines Flight 77. That's a Boeing 757 that was en route from Dulles airport near Washington, DC, to Los Angeles.”
(National Public Radio, 9/11/01)

“A second aircraft that crashed into the Trade Center is said also to have been an American Airlines aircraft with 60 passengers. It was apparently flying from Washington Dulles bound for Los Angeles before being hijacked.”
(Air Transport Intelligence, 9/11/01)


Confusion might help explain a bit (although McCormick didn’t seem to be very confused about Flight 175) but how is it possible to confuse Flight 77 with Flight 175?
While Flight 175 never vanished completely from the radar Flight 77 switched off its transponder only at 8:56. Anybody ready to explain how Flight 77 could have managed to fly to New York within 7 minutes? Or how on earth can one possibly confound Flight 77 and Flight 175

Why was the most visible of all hijacked flights so mysterious?

[seatnineb]

1. UA 175 trajectory

Fine work again ,John Doe II......

Here is a little something of interest regarding the trajectory of Flight 175....


On September 1, my buddy and I went to NYC to work as Ironworkers. We got dispatched to work on a high-rise IN QUEENS.
We stopped working for about twenty minutes as the first building burned wondering what we could do, when we saw the second plane come around the corner of the other tower. HE MADE A U-TURN and crashed into it right before our eyes.
http://www.journalregister.com/towntalk/html/messages/4 ...

How could this Iron worker see this U-turn........



From a highrise building in Queens,NYC.......?

[seatnineb]

2. Burnback interview.

For those who have not seen the In Plane Sight DVD.......

Here is a transcript of the conversation between Burnback(who saw the second plane) and a Fox news newscaster as the events were unfolding.

Fox NewsCaster:
"Mark Burnback, a Fox employee, is on the phone with us......Mark witnessed this......."

"Mark were you close enough to see any markings on the airplane....?"

Mark Burnback:
"Hi gentlemen....how ya doin.........
Yeah there was definitely a blue,circular logo on the front of the plane.....towards the front it definitely did not look like a commercial plane...I did not see any windows on the side...and uh... it was definitely very low....and...um...I am completely panicked...several of the people are freakin out down here....Can't believe what I just saw..."

Fox Newscaster:
"Well we are all shaken by this.....we are watching the video now back live(shows towers on fire)...but the upper floors of the wtc in flames now after apperently...after 2 large airplanes...we're talkin about jetliners slammed into the side of the wtc at around 9:00 this morning...."

"Mark..if what you say is true ...those could be cargo planes or something like that....you said you did not see any windows on the side....?"

Mark Burnback:
"I did not see any windows on the side..the plane was flying low...I was probably..a block away from the sub-way in Brooklyn and that plane came down very low.....and again it was not a normal flight that I have ever seen at an airport ...it was a plane with a blue logo on the front and it just ... looked like it did not belong in this area...."

He may have been in Brooklyn....but Burnback is adamant about what he saw...

[MercutioATC]

3. BROOKLYN??????

He got that kind of detail from BROOKLYN?

Damn! That guy has great eyes.

[seatnineb]

4. Fair point.....

I agree........

Burnback was far away..........

But another Brooklyn resident had this to say....

"I heard a plane fly overhead," said Park Foreman, 37, an Internet security consultant. "Then I looked out the window and saw the first tower on fire. I saw another airplane approaching from the south. I put my camera on it and followed it straight into the building. It looked like it went right through.

http://poly.union.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=793&pa... .

[MercutioATC]

5. We all saw similar video (the plane appearing to go through)...

What's the significance?

[John Doe II]

6. That you could see it from Brooklyn

I take it that two eywitnesses saw the plane underlines the possibilty that people in Brooklyn could see it. Moreover see seatnineb's first remark: the U-turn.

But, MercutioATC, can you help me out and explain all theses strange mysteries around Flight 175 and why the Commission lied again (as with the crash time of Flight 93)?

[MercutioATC]

7. But he could see that it had "no windows" from Brooklyn?

That's my issue with the statement.

[John Doe II]

8. Excuse me

Overlooked that.
But what do you think about my question?

[MercutioATC]

11. I think it's a good question to ask...and one that deserves an answer.

I'd like to see an explanation myself.

However, I don't see it as an intentional lie or coverup by the 9/11 Commission...and I really don't see what it proves.

[John Doe II]

12. Good to hear

It's good to hear that you have no explanation neither for this mystery. I agree that it doesn't prove something.
But once again: The Commission lied! (This makes already two lies within the first pages).
And thanks to Dulce things are even stranger now: UA never confirmed that UA 175 crashed into the WTC (which source gave shortly before noon this info to NBC is another matter).
And my only explanation is (without constructing a story of what really happened) that United Airlines really weren't sure that UA 175 crashed into the WTC. And this should really give people to think.

[MercutioATC]

13. Dulce's arguement is, I believe, unfounded.

United didn't confirm the crash until later because of the confusion surrounding the hijackings.

Do you remember the widely varying early reports? First, a "small plane" crashed into the WTC. Then there were varying reports that two United planes or two American planes had crashed. Nobody was certain. United didn't announce the crash until they were relative certain what was going on.

Also remember that many of the commercial planes in the air didn't make it to their original destinations. They were diverted to closer airports and landed. With 4,500 planes being landed, many of them at different destinations that originally planned, is it surprising that it took some time to sort things out?

There are questions to be asked. I'm not debating that. I'm just cautioning against "finding" conspiracies where they don't really exist.

[John Doe II]

14. No

The argument is slightly dfferent.
It's that first UA didn't conofirm anything at all (all the other flight including UA 93 alreday had been confirmed). Later they confirmed that it crashed but didn't give the location!
Dulce is right. CNN source state that at 11:59 only the fact that UA 175 crashed was announced but not the location. This corresponds also to the other source I gave. It took UA three hours to confirm that 175 crashed but they never announced where it crashed.
The first one to announce that UA 175 crashed into the WTC is NBC but they don't quote UA. And ABC needed till 4:00 p.m. to be sure that it wasn't Flight 77 (sic).
So Dulce is right.
WTC was never confirmed.
Why?
And why the confusion with Flight 77?

[MercutioATC]

15. Again, the initial information was conflicting.

We assumed that UAL175 had crashed into the WTC because 1) we had lost it from radar, 2) we knew a plane crashed into the WTC and 3) we couldn't find it anyplace else. We didn't have any kind of confirmation, early on, that UAL175 was actually the plane that crashed.

The obvious solution here would be to contact United and ask the question. However, like many times in the past, some posters prefer to make inferences than ask questions.

For an example of what I'm talking about, see here:

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

[John Doe II]

16. Ok

But why for hours say it's Flight 77 that crashed int the WTC?
Why took it so long to confirm that Flight 175 although it should have been the easiest one to confirm?
Why did UA never confirm the WTC as loction?

But as said: I agree that this proves nothing. But it's certainly very very bizarre and should be kept in mind.

[MercutioATC]

17. Again, I agree it's a question that bears asking.

I just would like to see people ask questions of the appropriate sources before reading too much into it.

UAL175 and AAL77 were operated by two different companies. Even now, they handle these crashes differently (one company has removed the registrations from the FAA database and one hasn't). The fact that they reported the crashes differently might not be such a mysterious thing.

[John Doe II]

18. Ok

But how can one explain that for hours it was believed Flight 77 crashed into the WTC?

[MercutioATC]

21. I have no idea.

Wish I had a better answer for you, but I don't.

[stickdog]

22. It doesn't. Your question is clear and obvious. He has no answer for it.

None whatsoever.

So that leaves him with four choices:

1) attempt to change the subject,

2) diminish the importance of your question,

3) pretend that there might be some simple (albeit completely unknown and unstated) explanation, or

4) ignore the subject completely.

[MercutioATC]

23. I'll go with a fifth option...

(which you'd have known if you'd bothered to read my reply before posting a list of how I could reply).

[MrSammo1]

43. I'm still

looking for a jet that looks like Flight 175? Haven't seen a pregnant one yet!

http://www.libertythink.com/2004/11/new-york-magazine-p...

[DulceDecorum]

9. Rewriting history.

THIS is what CNN said on September 11.
It has since changed it's story.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack /

12:15 p.m: San Francisco International Airport is evacuated and shut down. The airport was the destination of American Airlines Flight 77, which was one of the aircraft to strike the World Trade Center.

12:04 p.m.: Los Angeles International Airport, the destination of two of the hijacked American Airlines flights, is evacuated.

11:59 a.m.: United Airlines confirms that Flight 175, from Boston to Los Angeles, has crashed with 56 passengers and nine crew members aboard. Emergency personnel at the scene say there are no survivors.

11:26 a.m.: United Airlines reports that United Flight 93, en route from Newark, New Jersey, to San Francisco, has crashed in Pennsylvania, southeast of Pittsburgh. The airline also says that it is "deeply concerned" about United Flight 175.

11:18 a.m.: American Airlines reports it has lost two aircraft. American Flight 11, a Boeing 767 flying from Boston to Los Angeles, had 81 passengers and 11 crew aboard. Flight 77, a Boeing 757 en route from Washington's Dulles Airport to Los Angeles, had 58 passengers and six crew members aboard. Flight 11 is believed to be one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center.
http://www.mycatharsis.com/Sept112001/CNNChronology /

Please note
that there were emergency personnel at the spot
where Flight 175 crashed
and also that
these emergency personnel stated bluntly
that there were no survivors.

[John Doe II]

10. Thanks!

It very much seems indeed that United Airlines only confirmed at 11:59 the crash of Flight 175 butu didn't indicate where it crashed. See also:
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/09/11/world.as...

In fact what CNN wrote on September 12, 2001 is:
11:59 a.m.: United Airlines confirms that Flight 175, from Boston to Los Angeles, has crashed with 56 passengers and nine crew members aboard. It hit the World Trade Center's south tower.

From the wording it is not clear if UA also indicated the place. But apparently due to all existing facts this was not the case.

And thanks to this find the case of Flight 175 becomes even more mysterious.
(NBC indicated shortly before noon that Flight 175 had hit the WTC but apparently this wasn't based on United Airlines' statement).

And may I clearly remark here:
The Commission lied again.
UA wasn't aware at 9:20 that Flight 175 had crashed into the WTC.

[RedSock]

19. washington post also said 77 hit WTC

in a special print edition of the paper, it had a graphic showing the buildings and planes. and it had 77 crashing into WTC2.

and i think it had 175 hitting the pentagon.

they could have screwed it up, i suppose.

[John Doe II]

20. Thanks

This again shows that the confusion between Flight 77 and 175 wasn't a matter of minutes or a small hour. The questions remain:
How can one possibly confound Flight 77 and 175?
Why does UA confirm crash and location of Flight 93 but it takes very them three hours to confirm the crash and they still didn't give the location!?

[John Doe II]

24. Further question

UA waited till 11:59 before confirming that 175 crashed (without giving its location). UA waited until almost all airplanes were grounded and there was no more hope that UA 175 was still in the air. (It must be stressed that this wasn't UA politics because with Flight 93 they didn't wait to confirm the crash and to give the location).


Obviously they had completely lost contact to UA 175.
But obviously UA was convinced almost till the end that UA 175 was still in the air that's why they waited till there was basically no hope anymore.
Obviously UA was convinced that Flight 175 didn't hit the WTC.
Question is: what convinced UA that 175 was still in the air and hdn't hit the WTC?

[LARED]

25. Let me see if I understand your position

You are comparing the 9/11 commission report findings to news articles and transcripts from 9/11/01 and a day or so afterward.

Am I correct?

Assuming I am. What is your point? One of the primary jobs of an investigation is to separate facts from fiction. On 9/11 and subsequents days the level of misinformation was staggering.

If the standard for determining the honestly of any report is this, there is no way any investigation would be viewed as credible.

[John Doe II]

26. Facts and Fiction

Based on Transcripts and articles it's a fact and not a fiction that it took UA till 11:59 to confirm that UA 175 crashed (but still they didn't state where it crashed). As shown UA behaves differently with UA 93 where it doesn't take a lot of time to confirm crash and location. This is a fact. Based on numerous accounts (including direct quotes from UA). So I think it's legitimate to wonder how on earth the Report can be correct stating that it was 9:20 when UA was aware that Flight 175 crashed into the WTC.
Yes, I agree that there was a lot of confusion on 9/11. But I think it's a legitimate question to wonder how it was possible to believe for several hours that it was AA 77 that crashed into the WTC. Even theoretical this wasn't possible (seeing at what time and which place AA 77 switched off its transponder).
So there is one fact that clearly contradicts the Report and one question.

[LARED]

27. Quick comments

Being aware of an incident and publicly confirming it are two different things.

It should be noted the flight 175 and flight 93 took off from different airports. So offical communications regarding those flights were most likely coming from at least two sources within UA.

[stickdog]

28. The same UA dispatcher, Ed Ballinger, worked both flights.

If the 9/11 Commission didn't lie, they certainly failed to give any sort of explanation for why United Airlines reported that Flight 93 had crashed but that the airline was merely "concerned" about Flight 175.

This is yet another hole in the 9/11 Commission's sanitized narrative no matter how you slice it.

[tngledwebb]

29. And slice it and dice it six ways till Sunday

some surely will, but your patience, research, and debating skills are bound to come in handy for the International Third and Fourth World War Tribunals when all the Offal stories and reports and BS hearings will collapse quicker than WTC 1, 2 and 7. Just hope somebody will be left to see it.

[LARED]

30. Was Ed Ballinger the communication link to the outside?

for both aircraft? How does him being the dispatcher for both fit into this?

Also, perhaps I just don't get it, but why does the failure of the 9/11 commission report to address this trivial issue create a sanitized version?

Why would anyone care that the communication streams from UA was not perfect? A better question is why would anyone expect them to be even consistent?

[stickdog]

31. Please explain why when UA announced Flight 93 had crashed, they

were still "worried about Flight 175."

It's not a trivial question, despite your lame efforts to disguise it as such.

There have been plenty of after-the-fact narratives concerning the actions of officials at UA. None explain any confusion about the identity of Flight 175. But there was obviously a lot of organizational confusion within the airline that day. Nobody has ever explained why, and the 9/11 Commission sidestepped this obvious question -- like so many others -- as well.

[LARED]

32. Do you expect a definitive answer?

I don't have one for you.

Please keep in mind 9/11 was a very confusing day and even basic facts were not becoming clear until well after the smoke had cleared.

There were reports of 11 hijacked planes. Maybe they were not clear as to the locations of aircraft until the skys were clear. Maybe it's as simple as no one made an offical statement until that time.

Unconfirmed information was being broadcast everywhere by every media outlet. That fact that there was confusion and miscommunication that day is hardy surprising.

Do you expect the 9/11 commission to address every single inconsistent piece of information that was spoken that day?

You seem to.

The report was not written to satisfy the navel gazing and metal wandering of a bunch of people that see a conspiracy within every government utterance.

I'm sure if you are diligent enough you can spend a lifetime comparing the transcripts of 9/11 and subsequent days with the 9/11 report and find thousands of unanswered trivial questions.

[John Doe II]

33. Commission Report states

9:20 UA headquartesr aware that Flight 175 had crashed into WTC.
(p. 32)
Seen in the light of everything I've quoted it is really hard how this statement can be true...

[LARED]

35. Honestly

I don't see what real evidence you have to say that.

Other than media reports from 9/11 there is nothing to indicate that UA headquarters was not aware the flight 175 crashed at 9:20.

On the day of 9/11 there were thousands of items reported that were not verified. The 9/11 commission's job was to verify what the facts are after the events, not the other way around.

I asked this before. Do you expect every piece of misinformation created that day t obe addressed by the 9/11 commission. That's not going to happen.

[John Doe II]

36. Honestly

So according to you UA was aware at 9:20 that UA 175 crashed into WTC.
But they prefered the fun and were just "concerned" till 11:59 (after for long they had already declared UA 93 crashed in Shanksville) and then they want to continue the fun and say UA 175 crashed but we don't give a location??
Sorry, this seems nowhere likely.
And of course the Commission gives no footnote.

And it's not a small sidequestion: Because if you agree that OFFICIAL DECLARATIONS of UA are correct and not the Report then why did UA have no clue where UA 175 crashed?

[LARED]

37. I find nothing that screams problem

The UA headquarters knows at 9:20 that flight 175 had crashed.

To me, that this information did not offically make it out into the media frenzy of that day is hardly remarkable. It's not like no one knew which plane impacted the south tower until UA headquaters accounced it.

[John Doe II]

38. Not that easy

UA made two official statements:
One that Flight 93 crashed and that they're concerned with Flight 175.
One at 11:59 that Flight 175 crashed but that they don't give the location.

So once again: This are official statements transported by the media.
So can it be: 9:20 crash and location confirmed??

[John Doe II]

34. Commission Report states

9:20 UA headquartesr aware that Flight 175 had crashed into WTC.
(p. 32)
Seen in the light of everything I've quoted it is really hard how this statement can be true...
To put it mildly.
Do you agree on that one?


Moreover can you come up with an explanation how UA can confirm that one of their airplane crashed (well three hours later) but still not giving the location?? Don't they know? Then why? And how do they know that UA 175 crashed (because basically all planes are grounded?)? Or do they know and don't want to tell? Excuse me: Why. The whole world saw this airplane. No reason to create a mystery:

So: Why did they confirm the crash but not the location.

[John Doe II]

39. Anybody has an idea?

Does anybody have an idea how it come that apparently United Airlines comlpetely lost contact to UA 175 although the ATC never lost this flight?

[John Doe II]

40. Precision

As I pointed out UA only confirmed the crash of UA 175 at 11:59 (without giving the location of the crash).
I'd like to precise the following:

Just before 11:30 it was noted that

"Every commercial flight in U.S. airspace — about a quarter of the planes still in the air — is within 40 miles of its destination."
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-08-13-cle...


I found nowhere the exact time when there was no commercial flight in the US airspace anymore but the quote very much suggested that UA headquarter waited till the very end of hope before declaring the crash of UA 175. They waited till there was no more commercial airplane in the sky.
Can anybody come up with a different explanation than that UA 175 got completely lost and nobody had a clue where it was?
And how is it possible as it is supposed to have hit the WTC in front of two billion eyes? In front of the FAA as well?

[John Doe II]

41. I change the question

Why was United Airlines apparently absolutely convinced that UA 175 didn't crash into the WTC?

[Old and In the Way]

44. What if.......

What if there was a blip on a radar screen that was ID'd as UA 175 after the actual crash?

BTW, of no direct bearing to 9/11, but I took UA 175 out of Boston in early August....

[John Doe II]

46. Hard to believe

Too many people would have witnessed that I believe.
In fact aroud 8:50 a manager of UA tells Jim Goodwin (United's chairman and chief executive): "Boss, we've lost contact with one of our airplanes" (Wall Street Journal, 15/10/01)

But then the big big big question is

How can you possibly loose contact to an airplane that had never switched off its transponder?

[John Doe II]

42. Manager of American Airlineq

"American command center heard television reports of a plane hitting the south tower of the trade center. Many in the room instantly assumed it was American Flight 77, the missing plane from Washington.
"How did 77 get to New York and we didn't know it?" Joe Bertapelle, (the manager at American's operations center)recalls shouting."
(Wall Street Journal, 10/15/01)

Excuse me: How can even them have believed that it was AA 77 if it was impossible due to the position of AA 77 when it turned off its transponder?

And, as far as I know, the airlines are in contact to their planes. This should have been another reason to prove that it couldn't have hit the WTC?!

[Old and In the Way]

45. AA77 flightpath

<>

I find that 'bump' in the flight path very strange...this would have been after or during the hijacking? If during, why wouldn't they have turned east, instead of getting back onto the original flight path? Or were they coordinating their planned strike on Washington with 93 that was delayed on the ground at the airport?

[John Doe II]

47. The bump

According to the timeline the bump is clearly before the hijacking started. But only USA Today has this big bump other cards are different (but I'm not too firm in this).
I highly recommend you to read Paul Thomson's Terror Timeline (and older version is online www.cooperativeresearch.org ) it's really the essential reading and gives you all info you need and points out all contradictions without immediately jumping to conclusions.

[Old and In the Way]

48. That's where I took the pic from.

BTW, Paul posts here on the DU. I agree, he does have the most comprehensive and best documented timeline of 9/11 and the historical background from which it came.

[Old and In the Way]

49. I was just reading another thread about Vigilant Guardian.

Finally, this makes sense in context of the bump. I had my suspicions that it was some kind of delaying tactic awaiting 93's arrival for the attack on Washington.

[Make7]

50. The funny thing about most corporations is....

that they are really only concerned about one thing: money.

Why would they publicly announce that Flight 93 crashed in a field and not announce that Flight 175 crashed into the WTC?

Liability. I'm sure the lawyers and accountants were trying to figure out what possible liability issues they might have had to deal with regarding damage to the WTC. The airline probably figured that not publicly announcing it was the safe thing to do to cover their assets.

-Make7

[k-robjoe]

51. Hm

But it was suggested that it was Flight 77 ( American Airlines ).

[Make7]

52. By United Airlines? eom.

[John Doe II]

53. No, American Airlines 77!

K-robjoe is right.
In py very first post you'll find several quotes from transcripts of ABC and NBC on 911. For long it was reported that AA 77 hit the WTC!
So, although I see your point about money it still doesn't explain why
American Airlines declared immediately their crashs.
AA 77 was believed to have hit the tower.
The only airplane the whole world has seen and which didn't switch off its transponder and was easily trackable for the tower: Why this confusion about this and only this plane?
And why does UA loose track of its plane at 9:00 (three minutes before it hit the tower)?
Why did the manager of AA wondered in surprise: Why did AA 77 hit the tower?

Many questions still unanswered. And keep in mind that UA waited to declare only the crash of 175 till basically all planes were grounded and there as no more hope.

[Make7]

54. From the first post:

Quote: "the Commission Report states: 9:20 UA headquarters aware that Flight 175 had crashed into WTC (p. 32) Unfortunately this is simply not true."

How do you know that is not true? They didn't immediately hold a press conference? Maybe they were busy wondering what their other planes might crash into.
__________

Quote: "United is also saying now that they are concerned about a further flight that apparently is still missing, flight 175. It is a Boeing 767. It was scheduled from Boston to Los Angeles. That flight apparently is still unaccounted for, according to officials from United."

A company not releasing information. (Possibly pending a decision from their lawyers.)
__________

Quote: "UA confirms that Flight 175 crashed but ….: “United Airlines Flight 175: A Boeing 767 crashes. The flight was bound from Boston to Los Angeles. It carried 56 passengers, two pilots and seven flight attendants. The airline would not say where that plane crashed.”"

A company releasing some information, but only (possibly) what their lawyers approved.
__________

My point was that a company might not release information right away that could possibly open them up to lawsuits. They might want to check with their lawyers first. Just because certain information is not released to the press does not constitute proof that they don't have said information. (This is only regarding the United flights, American might have different procedures for releasing information.)
__________

Also from your first post:

Quote: "Also Michael McCormick, the FAA's New York air traffic manager had nothing mysterious to tell in “a press conference in which air traffic controllers in New York, Boston, and Washington, D.C., made their first extensive public comments since the attacks.”
(Boston Globe, 8/13/02)

Mr. MIKE McCORMICK (New York Air Traffic Manager): We tracked that aircraft as it turned southbound and then back northeast-bound, back toward Manhattan. I assumed at that point that that target of that aircraft was, in fact, the World Trade Center.
ORR: Controllers tracked the hijacked jet for 11 agonizing and helpless minutes.
Mr. McCORMICK: For those 11 minutes, I knew, we knew, what was going to happen, and that was difficult.
(CBS, 8/13/02)

''Probably one of the most difficult moments in my life was the 11 minutes from the point I watched that aircraft when we first lost communication to the point that aircraft hit the World Trade Center.
(Boston Globe, 8/13/02)
(Ottawa Citizen, 8/13/03)"

So air traffic control knew right away. They don't call the airline when one of their planes crashes? If they knew that Flight 175 hit the WTC, why would they think Flight 77 hit it also? Weren't they watching the news? Everyone knew that only one plane hit the South Tower. Why couldn't they figure it out and inform the airlines? Or better yet, just call the news media?
__________

Quote: "CNN states on September 12, 2001 that United Airlines confirmed at 11:59 that Flight 175 had crashed. (The other three flights had been already confirmed long before)."

Quote: "Four hours after the second attack the confusion reaches its climax:

LYNN SHERR: That--what--what you're seeing is the north tower. Behind it there's a second identical tower, as you know. That plane crashed right into it. All morning we have been told by American Airlines, among others, that that flight, that airplane, was actually American Airlines Flight 77 going out of Dulles to Los Angeles. We were told 58 passengers, four flight attendants, two pilots on that plane. It was hijacked at 9:03--I'm sorry, it was hijacked right after takeoff. Crashed into the tower at 9:03 AM.

JENNINGS: Let me stop you right there, Lynn, because I just--I have had different information so I'm going to rely on you here. You now believe the American Airlines Flight 77 which took off from Dulles on its way to Los Angeles, crashed into the Trade towers, not into the Pentagon?

SHERR: We were told that originally. What I'm about to tell you is the FBI is now saying that that's the one that went into the Pentagon. The FBI spokesperson is saying that the flight that went into World Trade Center tower number two, that's south tower, was, in fact United Airlines 175, a Boeing 767 that left Boston for LAX, departed at 7:58 AM this morning; 56 passengers, two pilots, seven flight attendants. This is confusing, I apologize. We are getting two different answers to our questions."(ABC, 9/11/01 1 p.m. – 2 p.m.)

So the other three flights had already been confirmed long before? Why did ABC not know about the details of the already long confirmed Flight 77? Didn't American know Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? Was that information not part of the confirmation? Or did they just announce that it crashed, but not say where? Did they keep it a secret from ABC?

Is there still confusion about what happened to Flight 175?

-Make7

[John Doe II]

56. Thanks a lot for your detailed questions!

First of all I find it hard to understand that UA could hope to escape possible lawsuits if it doesn't confirm that UA 175 hit the WTC. If literally billion eyes saw it I think it's rather hard for UA to cover it up.
And as it is about billions of dollars certainly AA would have been cautious to confirm anyting as well, especially as for AA 11 it would have been much easier as it wasn't live on TV.
But what stresses the point that UA simply didn't know is not only the fact till they waited till basically all airplanes had landed before confirming the crash of UA 175 (but not giving any location)but also that UA lost contact to it's plane at 8:50 (see post 46). (The airline is in contact with the airplane normally. That's why btw Delta 1989 was asked to land at Cleveland).
Why there is a confusion between 77 and 175 I really don't know. It's simply strange strange. But see also my post that the manager of AA though 77 hit the WTC? So, what's goind on there?


Why did ABC not know about the details of the already long confirmed Flight 77?


I don't know. I chose ABC because they were slow. But NBC as shown only got it right just before 12:00.


American know Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? (/i]
As shown, no for some time they didn't know that. And don't forget all contact was lost to AA 77 at 8:56.

Was that information not part of the confirmation? Or did they just announce that it crashed, but not say where? Did they keep it a secret from ABC?

I didn't look specifically for AA confirmation because after the mix up between 77 and 175 everything was according to the official explanation but only 175 still an open question that's why I concentrated on this flight. And going through all the available material takes some time ...!





Is there still confusion about what happened to Flight 175?

I take it your questions is simply what I think?!

First of all in order to understand what happened on 911 I'd like to understand this issue as well (and no the 9:20 time given by CR is really really hard to believe especially if UA lost contact to 175). Maybe the unknown reason for all this could also be helpful to explain the absence of air defense.

Before answering I've to do some research myself. Right now I'd like to turn the question back to you if you don't mind:

What concrete proof do we have that UA 175 hit the WTC?

I don't mean circumstantial evidence but really concrete facts.
If UA lost contact then did the FAA really know what plane they were following? (sure, it didn't switch off the transponder but how come then that UA loses contact)

To make it clear I don't know an answer to this but would be happy to discuss it.

[John Doe II]

57. UA lost contact

UA press release from 3:18 pm on 911:

United Flight 175, a Boeing 767 aircraft, departed from Boston, MA, at 7:58 a.m. local time, bound for Los Angeles with 56 passengers onboard, 2 pilots and 7 flight attendants. United has confirmed the loss of this aircraft. Last radar contact with the aircraft was between Newark, NJ, and Philadelphia, PA."
http://www.public-action.com/911/ual175radar /

So, UA lost radar contact to UA 175. And it lost radar contact clearly before UA 175 hit the WTC...
Btw even in this press release UA doesn't state that UA 175 hit the WTC. But for UA 93 "The aircraft crashed near Johnstown, PA." (although it assumes that all people aboard are dead).
Hm.
Anyway: How come UA lost radar contact although UA 175 never switched off its transponder?

[Make7]

60. The object doesn't need to do anything

"How come UA lost radar contact although UA 175 never switched off its transponder?" - John Doe II

I think a plane can be tracked with radar even if its transponder is off. Radar sends out a radio wave and listens to see if it bounces off anything. The object doesn't need to do anything except be big enough to reflect the minimum amount of a return wave to be detected. The detected information can be used to determine location and speed. I think the transponder sends additional information to help them track altitudes and flight numbers. (or maybe plane numbers.) Obviously I'm not an expert, but I would think that the north eastern United States has adequate Radar coverage to track everything in the sky. The plane may have been "lost" because they were looking for the wrong transponder code. But it should have always had a Radar return. In fact, the tapes of the actual Radar returns might prove that Flight 175 hit the WTC if it is a continuous track to New York. (If one should choose to believe such a thing.) I could be wrong - I am obviously not someone who knows very much about this subject.

Make7

[John Doe II]

62. UA 175 never switched off its transponder

According to the CR UA 175 changed twice its transponder code (why??) but it actually never switched off its transponder.
"At 8:51, the controller noticed the transponder change from United 175" (CR, 21).
So, there was absolutely no problem to track it.
So, why the confusion?
And why did UA lose radar contact at 9:00??

[Make7]

59. I personally have none.

"First of all I find it hard to understand that UA could hope to escape possible lawsuits if it doesn't confirm that UA 175 hit the WTC. If literally billion eyes saw it I think it's rather hard for UA to cover it up.
And as it is about billions of dollars certainly AA would have been cautious to confirm anything as well, especially as for AA 11 it would have been much easier as it wasn't live on TV." - John Doe II

I wasn't trying to say United could just pretend it never happened, deny everything and avoid possible liability. Just that before making any public statements, I think they may have been checking with their lawyers to make sure they didn't say anything that they may later regret. I doubt if they had a protocol in place for when a plane is hijacked and flown into a skyscraper. They may have had to weigh the implications of any statements they would make.

United and American are two different companies and as such will handle things differently. Just because one may do something a certain way doesn't mean the other will automatically do it the same way.

"What concrete proof do we have that UA 175 hit the WTC?" - John Doe II

I personally have none. But there are a couple of possible ways to prove it was indeed Flight 175.

- Parts of the plane recovered from the site. If parts have identifiers that could be matched to Flight 175 then we would know it was one of the planes that hit the WTC.
- DNA of the passengers. If DNA matches are found that prove that passengers on that plane were at the WTC, we could reasonable conclude that they got there on that flight.

Have either of these been done? I don't know, I haven't looked into it. And of course if someone is a LIHOPer or MIHOPer, this would not constitute proof anyway. But it is the only thing concrete I can think of.

-Make7

[John Doe II]

63. Don't worry

If there is a proof of DNA I'd be happy to have a look at it.
I hope that my work shows that I'm trying to look at all possible sources.
Parts of the plane that would be still identifiable: I would be very surprised: One would not only have to prove that it would be part of a Boeing 757 but also that it was exactly UA 175 and no other plane.

The confusion of the media only reflects the fact that UA lost radar contact to its plane and that a AA manager even thought that AA77 hit the WTC. So, this indicates to me that they really didn't have a clue.

[Make7]

67. I'd like to look at it too.

But I don't know that a list of identified victims (by DNA, fingerprints, dental records, x-rays, etc.) is available to the public - I can't find one on the internet. While looking I did find this article from September 2, 2002:

Quote: "Against expectations, it has been possible to identify the remains of 43 people who were on board the jets that crashed into the Twin Towers." - BBC News

And this one from September 11, 2002:

Quote: "The 1,401 people identified include 45 of those aboard the hijacked planes - 33 from Flight 11, which struck the north tower, and 12 from Flight 175, which hit the south tower." - New York Daily News
____________________

In my previous post I said, "...possible ways to prove it was indeed Flight 175: Parts of the plane recovered from the site. If parts have identifiers that could be matched to Flight 175 then we would know it was one of the planes that hit the WTC...."

My car has a VIN number on the engine, the chassis, the dashboard, and the driver's side door frame. (There may be some in places I'm not aware of.) If it was in an explosion and one of those numbers was still intact enough to be readable then my car could be positively identified. Remember the VIN number they retrieved from the axle of the truck used in the WTC bombing in 1993?

I cannot imagine that a plane would not have significantly more than four uniquely identifiable numbers on its various parts. Including the engines, which seem to have a higher incidence of surviving crashes.

-Make7

[MercutioATC]

55. Because they knew that UAL93 crashed in PA.

UAL93 was tracked all the way to the ground and an apparent crash was visually confirmed by another aircraft.

The other three planes were "lost" for a time. With the chaos created by having half of their flights being diverted to closer airports and landed, I'd imagine the airlines would want to make absolutely certain which planes actually crashed and where before they made official announcements.

[Make7]

58. Thanks for responding.

I was pretty much just asking so I could answer the question myself. But that is a good point about Flight 93 being the only one they were certain of right away. But...

Another poster raised this point and I was wondering if you could shed some light on it. If a pilot switches the transponder on a plane, can it still be determined what plane it is? Or does the code on the ground have to match the one on the plane in order for the flight number and other info com up? If the information disappears, what is the procedure to reacquire it? How long might it take?

Thanks,
Make7

[MercutioATC]

61. Transponder answer:

If a pilot switches off the transponder, no discrete beacon code (which identifies the plane) or altitude information is transmitted. Because the plane isn't tracked by the computer, no speed is calculated, either.

There's no way to reacquire this data from the ground. The pilot must turn the transponder back on. However, radio waves still bounce off of the plane, so the primary radar target is still seen and can be manually tracked (with no speed or altitude data).

Once the transponder is turned back on, it takes less than a minute to recieve and synchronize the data, usually.

[Make7]

65. A few more questions:

I think the issue with Flight 175 was that the hijackers changed the transponder code. (Or whatever it's called.) Does the computer recognize this and still identify the plane correctly? Or does someone on the ground need to tell the computer to look for the new transponder code? Or is it impossible to figure out what code to look for?
__________

How many planes would a typical air traffic controller be expected to monitor at one time? How easy or difficult would it be for someone to manually track a flight while keeping track of all of the other ones they are responsible for?

Thanks,
Make7

[John Doe II]

66. Your first question

see my post 62. According to CR the fact that UA 175 changed twice the transponder cde was noticed at 8:51.
Your second question is of course very worth asking but in case of UA 175 it's clear the change was noticed and moreover the quotes from post 1 show that the controllers followed this plane till it disappeared at the WTC.

[Make7]

68. RE: UA 175 never switched off its transponder

There appears to be some confusion regarding that as well:

Quote: "8:46 a.m. - New York flight controller Dave Bottoglia is in charge of monitoring both Flights 11 and 175. He's just watched Flight 11's radar blip disappear over New York City, but doesn't yet realize the plane has crashed. “Within seconds” of losing Flight 11's blip, he realizes that Flight 175 is also missing. He has another controller take over all his other planes so he can focus on finding Flight 175. He tries contacting the planes several times unsuccessfully. Curt Applegate, sitting at the radar screen next to Bottoglia, sees a blip that might be the missing Flight 11. In fact, it's the missing Flight 175. Right as Bottoglia notices it, its transponder signal turns back on, but at a different signal than before (see (8:46 a.m.)). MSNBC reports, “There is no longer any question in Bottoglia's mind that he's looking at a second hijacked airliner.” He then notices it turn east and start descending. He keeps an eye on it and sees it head right at Delta Flight 2315. He recalls saying to the Delta flight, “Traffic, 2:00, 10 miles. I think he's been hijacked. I don't know his intentions. Take any evasive action necessary.” Flight 2315 takes evasive action, missing Flight 175 by less than 200 feet. {MSNBC, 9/11/02 (B)} However, there is no claim that NORAD is notified about the hijacking at this time. According to a NORAD timeline, NORAD is notified by Boston flight control three minutes earlier (see 8:43 a.m.). The 9/11 Commission seems to completely ignore this account from Bottoglia, and has him notice the transponder change at 8:51, instead of as it is happening, as he claims (see 8:51-8:53 a.m.)

Flight 175 stops transmitting its transponder signal. It is 50 miles north of New York City, heading toward Baltimore. {8:46:18, Guardian, 10/17/01, “about the same time” as Flight 11 crash, Newsday, 9/10/02, 8:47, 9/11 Commission Report, 6/17/04} However, the transponder is turned off for only about 30 seconds, then changed to a signal that is not designated for any plane on that day. {Newsday, 9/10/02} This “allow(s) controllers to track the intruder easily, though they couldn't identify it.” {Washington Post 9/17/01}" - CooperativeResearch.org

Perhaps the thirty seconds were just the time it took for the ground computer to reaquire the data? I don't know.

The above quote also says that they could track the plane but not identify it with the different transponder signal.

I am curious how the transponder system works and how it is displayed to an air traffic controller, hence my questions to MercutioATC.

-Make7

[John Doe II]

71. "This allow(s) controllers"

to track the intruder easily" (Washington Post, 9/17/01)

Btw it's always very good to come back to Paul Thompson's Timeline because it's much better than the CR. The interesting difference is that WP states UA 175 stopped its transponder signal while CR states it changed twice. Even if the CR is full of mistakes I think we should follow it for the moment.

But noonetheless, the CR states that at 8:51 the change of transponder was noticed by the controller. So apparently there is absolutely no problem concerning UA 175.

[MercutioATC]

69. Here's how our computers work:

Our HOST computer has flight plans for all IFR flights (and any VFR flights that choose to file a flight plan) entered into it. The computer assigns each of these flights a discrete beacon code.

When the plane is ready to depart, the pilot is given the code and enters it into the transponder. When the computer sees that code where it should be it activates the flight plan and begins tracking (at some airports without certain automation, the flight plan has to be manually opened by a controller).

Here's where things get a little confusing...

Radar tracks the actual plane. The computer, separately, tracks the plane AS LONG AS IT FOLLOWS ITS FILED FLIGHT PLAN. If the plane turns off its transponder, we lose altitude and speed data, but the data block displays a "coast" message and continues along the filed route of flight (with a untracked radar target displayed). If the plane then deviates from its filed flight plan, we'll still see that radar target turn, but the data block keeps moving along the path in the flight plan.

Maximum number of planes at a time varies at different sectors, but we generally consider ourselves busy at about 20 planes, very busy at 25 and insanely busy above 30 (in a Center environment).

To answer more directly: 1) Ia code changes, the computer stops associating the flight plan with the target. 2) The difficulty in tracking an unassociated target isn't so much being busy, it's a matter of noticing before the target is too far away from where it's supposed to be. Once a target gets too far away, it could be ANYBODY, because it's bot broadcasting any ID.

If I can clarify any of this, feel free to ask.

[Make7]

70. That clears up my confusion. Thank you. n/t

[John Doe II]

64. Here I can't agree

UA 175 was in fact the only plane that didn't switch off its transponder.
UA 93 switched it off when turning around at Cleveland (9:41, CR, 29). So then we can only assume that it still is UA 93 that crashed in Shanksville (and the aicraft confirming the crash can only confirm that there is a crater and smoke. Nothing else).
I don't imply here that it wasn't UA 93 but for sure we can't say "they knew that UA93 crashed in PA".

Btw, MercutioATC I'd be very happy if you cold provide a statement to the Delta timeline from your ATC point of view.
I did the best I can to create an exacte timeline and to pose the questions that follow but I simply lack your professional knowledge in order to know if this completely inexpicable consideration of Delta 1989 as "fourth hijacking" is nonetheless explicable.
Thanks.

[spooked911]

72. I wonder if the confusion UA had with flight 175 had something to do with

the flight not being a real flight-- but rather part of the hijack drill for that day?

Maybe only later when UA got word from the government of what the deal was, did they claim the flight. I imagine some sort of deal was worked out.

[MercutioATC]

73. The problem with that supposition:

All four 9/11 planes were monitored by ATC from the time they left the gate (all planes are). How could one of them not been a "real flight" if this is true?

[spooked911]

74. It was a "real" flight that took off and could be tracked by radar but

I meant it was perhaps not a real flight from the standpoint of United Airlines. Perhaps it was a mock UA flight being used for the hijack exercise.

[MercutioATC]

75. My point is that the flight was seen leaving the gate.

A plane landed and parked at a United gate. People got off of the plane. Other people then got on the plane. The plane then taxied to the runway and took off. The entire time, it was observed by ATC.

I just don't understand where it became part of an exercise instead of a real flight.

[spooked911]

76. Then why was United so confused about their own flight?

Anyway, we know hijacking exercises were run that day. We don't know how they were set up. Maybe the 8am flight was converted to a special flight.

Flight 175 was also where the strange Peter Hanson phone call took place -- I posted on this last night.

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