Did Hank Krakowski (United Airlines) lie about Flight 93?

[Woody Box]

Hank Krakowski is at present the Chief Operation Officer of the FAA:

http://www.faa.gov/about/key_officials/krakowski

On 9/11, he was United Airline's flight operations director. In an USA Today article, he delineated the situation when Flight 93 disappeared from radar:

At United Airline's crisis center, a solitary blip glows red on a big screen. It transfixes Hank Krakowski, the airline's flight operations director. Although the airline still has hundreds of flights in the air, officials at the airline's headquarters outside Chicago choose to illuminate only the path of Flight 93 on the status board. Are they gonna have to shoot it down? he wonders.

A 737 captain who flies vintage fighter planes at air shows, Krakowski, 47, isn't the only one wondering. Military jets already are closing on the Boeing 767 as it barrels toward Washington. Then, at 10:06 a.m., the blip stops moving over Pennsylvania.

"Latitude and longitude," Krakowski snaps. The coordinates put the jet at Johnstown, Pa., about 120 miles from the nation's capital. Krakowski picks up the phone and is patched through to the Johnstown airport. No answer. No answer? How can there not be an answer?

A staffer finds the cell phone number for the airport manager. Krakowski tries again. "We might have a plane down in your area there," he says calmly. "See anything unusual?" The answer is the one Krakowski fears. A black column of smoke rises from a field due south of the airport, near the town of Shanksville, the manager tells him. Krakowski feels numb as he looks at the screen. We just watched one of our airplanes crash.

But at least the jet hadn't reached Washington. No one would have to shoot it down.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-08-12-hijacker-daytwo_x.htm


Where's the problem?

The problem is that according to a new obtained FAA document (courtesy of Kevin Fenton) United Airlines was tracking Flight 93 even after its alleged crash:

UAL hey ellen sandy rogers at united i need a supervisor to talk about united ninety three
...
UAL ellen ellen ninety three it's over haggerstown now and you're not aware of it it's heading toward washington d c and we are under a threat uh uh of a uh hijacking on board and this flight is out of our control now heading toward washington d c.

http://www.historycommons.org/sourcedocuments/2003/usdepartmentoftransportation031014.pdf

Hagerstown is in Maryland, near Camp David, fifty miles or so south-east of the alleged crash site of Flight 93.

If Krakowski observed the radar blip disappearing, how is it possible that United Airlines was still tracking the blip ten minutes later?

[hack89]

1. Why do you think it was a radar blip?

airlines don't track their planes by radar - I suspect that it was reporting its position by GPS. Then the question becomes how frequently the position is updated.

On edit: The fact that the blip stopped moving would confirm this - radar blips don't hover.

[Woody Box]

3. Are you sure?

A quote from Jere Longman, "Among the heroes":

At the United system operations center outside Chicago, the red radar track of Flight 93 just stopped, the image of a miniature plane halting on a video screen as if a computer had frozen. Hank Krakowski, the director of the airline's flight operations, handed a map to a dispatcher sitting behind him in the crisis center. "Map that", he said.

Actually it doesn't matter whether Sandy Rogers' report on Flight 93 over Hagerstown was based on radar or GPS. Fact is that United Airlines was tracking the plane still after its alleged crash.
So what's up with Krakowski's observation?

[hack89]

5. Hence my question about update rate

the fact that there was a blip doesn't mean that there was a real airplane associated with it - it may have simply been an artifact left in the system.

[defendandprotect]

7. No . . . It's Krakowski who talks about "radar blip" . . UAL talks about TRACKING the plane . . .

and gives its position "now over Haggerstown" - "heading toward Washington, DC" --

ten minutes after Krakowski's report ---




Where's the problem?

The problem is that according to a new obtained FAA document (courtesy of Kevin Fenton) United Airlines was tracking Flight 93 even after its alleged crash:


UAL hey ellen sandy rogers at united i need a supervisor to talk about united ninety three
...
UAL ellen ellen ninety three it's over haggerstown now and you're not aware of it it's heading toward washington d c and we are under a threat uh uh of a uh hijacking on board and this flight is out of our control now heading toward washington d c.


http://www.historycommons.org/sourcedocuments/2003/usde...

Hagerstown is in Maryland, near Camp David, fifty miles or so south-east of the alleged crash site of Flight 93.

If Krakowski observed the radar blip disappearing, how is it possible that United Airlines was still tracking the blip ten minutes later?

[PatrickSMcNally]

8. Faulty link

http://www.historycommons.org/sourcedocuments/2003/usde

Error 404 Page not Found!

[defendandprotect]

10. Not my link . . . but working for me . .

I merely repeated it -- go back to the opening post and pick up the link there --

it works --

[Woody Box]

11. hmmm?

the fact that there was a blip doesn't mean that there was a real airplane associated with it - it may have simply been an artifact left in the system.

...and the United employees are complete idiots in identifying this "artifact" as United 93, is it that what you mean?

And FAA controllers and the Secret Service are idiots too, tracking the "projected flight path" of the plane until it was 80 miles out of Washington? (Hagerstown is 70 miles out.)

At 10:02, the communicators in the shelter began receiving reports from the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft-presumably hijacked-heading toward Washington. That aircraft was United 93.The Secret Service was getting this information directly from the FAA. The FAA may have been tracking the progress of United 93 on a display that showed its projected path to Washington, not its actual radar return. Thus, the Secret Service was relying on projections and was not aware the plane was already down in Pennsylvania.217

At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out.

((Source: 9/11 Commission Report))

Instead of postulating a synchronous idiocy of United employees and FAA controllers with astronomic low probability - locating UA 93 at the same but wrong place - you should bow to the inevitable conclusion that UA 93 - the real plane - was tracked by United and FAA on its way to Washington.

Are you familiar with the Operation Northwoods plot?

[hack89]

12. Show me that United and the FAA had an integrated tracking system

I question that United uses radar to track aircraft - you would have to show that the FAA shared their radar feed with the airlines. I don't think you can.

[Woody Box]

13. You miss my point

So United uses GPS to track their aircraft? That's fine, I'm not going to claim that the airline gets the radar data from the FAA.

Actually, the GPS thing makes my case even stronger: that the so-called "projected flight path" of Flight 93, allegedly a pure radar blip without underlying target, was in fact a real path of a real plane. The FAA was tracking it by radar, United by GPS. This is what is called independent confirmation.

Thanks a lot for the information. :thumbsup: Very helpful.

[wildbilln864]

2. thank you. nt

[victordrazen]

4. Of course he lied

Do you even have to ask?

[defendandprotect]

6. Inconvenient truths . . .. !!!

and glad you are reminding us of them ---

Btw, the transponder is technically never off --- the plane can always be identified by

airline/FBI - authorities.

And the "hole in the ground" is shown on satellite pics to have been there long before

the alleged crash --

More myth ---

[SDuderstadt]

9. This is your stupidest claim to date, D & P...

Btw, the transponder is technically never off --- the plane can always be identified by airline/FBI - authorities."