portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article creative united states

9.11 investigation

flight 93 (or was it) backtracking tail #'s the 2 591's

On Sept 10th 2001, Flight 0078 (=N591UA) arrived in Newark from SFO (San Fransisco) at 6:54 wheel on time. However, Flight 0507, with the same tail number, 591UA departed Boston Logan for ORD (Chicago) at 7:39 wheel off time. It left from Chicago airport 45 mins after it touched down in Newark.
Sept 10th 2001
Flight 0078 (591UA) arrives in Newark from SFO (San Fransisco) at 6:54 wheel on time
Flight 0507 (591UA) departs Boston Logan for ORD (Chicago) at 7:39 wheel off time.

Boston does not have records of it arriving at Logan that day?
Newark only has it departing once at 19:40?
Anyone see a problem here ?
It had 45 mins from touchdown in San Fran before it left IN ANTOHER CITY ?
 http://911bts.brad.com/2-591s.html

Also, later that day...
591UA departed ORD to EWR 10:43 (no arrival time in EWR diverted as flight 0640)
departed Newark to SFO 19:40 (5 hours late, 14:30 scheduled, as flight 0075)

Question: How can it depart Newark if it was diverted?

There are no records of it arriving in Newark.
If it did arrive in Newark why was it 5 hours late?
 http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=68089;title=APFN

From what I understand, BTS.gov uses UTC time. so it is not a time zone problem. I checked other flights and they do not have this problem.

Since the BTS data has become a big issue, i went to an ATC web board and started chatting with the guys.
I mentioned this stuff, and here is the response...

The data in that data base is not recorded by the government, it is recorded by the individual airlines and (eventually) reported to the government... I would imagine that every airline has a different procedure. ...and I suspect that there is no oversight over the quality of the database, nor any penalty for errors -- so there would be very little motivation for any airline to spend a lot of money to ensure that the absolutely correct information is being reported.
My only point is that it would be a mistake to read too much into the data just because it is being reported on a government web site.

regards,
xxxxx

OK , so this is not really new to me, all its saying is that the BTS may not be accurate, and its the airlines data. An earlier response from this board from the webmaster is below...

The FAA keeps pretty good records when it comes to aircraft registry, I don't think this is possible. Flt 93 was a B-757. NTSB confirmed it. The duplicate tail number could be as simple as a pilot screw up. He may have flown the 73 the day or hour before and now is the seat of the 75 and files the wrong tail number. I don't know, just guessing.
 http://bbs.natca.net/default.asp?fid=67

So this guy says it is a coincidence. Somehow i doubt that.
Ive looked at dozens (at least) of BTS records, and the only anomalies like this i found were for 591UA and 594UA ( for 594UA see url)
www.rense.com/general56/flfight.htm
-------------------------------

Also interesting is that flight 175 changed its transponder code twice (911 commission-paraphrased). according to officials at Flight Explorer, it is unusual to change a transponder code in flight.

"Also overheard was a request for a flight path to Kennedy - but
the controller, who was not controlling the plane himself, is unsure
whether the pilot or hijacker made the request."
(Source:  http://www.csmonitor.com/earlyed/earlyUSA5.html)

now, related to this on flight 93. it filed a new flight plan. Now the media reported that it filed a new plan at 9:35. but a flight explorer official said that it filed a new plan AFTER 10:00 am.
The only explanation i can figure is that the data for the new flight plan did not appear in real time, somehow it was delayed. I dont know enough to comment. Anyone want to look into this?
 http://airgames.bravehost.com/flight93.html

Ive got to wonder why a hijacker would file a new flight plan, and turn a transpoder code back on. In the case of flight 175, it was done twice.

Below , snips from the article at globalfreepress.
I only included the pertinent info....
Brad

----------------------

"Twin tails" of pre-Flight 93 and other "phantom
flights"
 http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=901

The official timeline of Sep11th is breaking apart.

Atta's Portland flight did not exist; various flights
of the official flights or the tail numbers of their
precursors existed twice; new, recently unknown terror
drills show, that the scenario of 9/11 was well known;
the new "flight plans" and meeting points of the
alleged hijacked flights included too many
coincidences; the planners of the "hijack" must have
had inside knowledge about other flights and their
cancellations as well.

n September 11th, 2001, "Flight93" was officially
listed by the FAA with Tail Number N591UA.
The latest findings of Brad M, ewing2001, Frank Levi,
and others, show that something appears to be fishy
with the history of this tail number, which suggests a
possible swap scenario of this Flight, for whatever
reasons.

The question is, if it really was this Flight, who
departed Newark on that morning, and if this tail was
still around after Sep11th

Currently, a new hunt within the BTS database, shows
clearly, that something is irregular in the Timeline
of N591UA...

On Sept 10th 2001, Flight 0078 (=N591UA) arrived in
Newark from SFO (San Fransisco) at 6:54 wheel on time.
However, Flight 0507, with the same tail number, 591UA
departed Boston Logan for ORD (Chicago) at 7:39 wheel
off time, as current screenshots show. How is this
possible?...

Currently, a new hunt within the BTS database, shows clearly, that something is irregular in the Timeline of N591UA...

On Sept 10th 2001, Flight 0078 (=N591UA) arrived in Newark from SFO (San Fransisco) at 6:54 wheel on time. However, Flight 0507, with the same tail number, 591UA departed Boston Logan for ORD (Chicago) at 7:39 wheel off time, as current screenshots show. How is this possible?

Also, Boston does not have records of N591UA arriving at Logan that day and Newark only has it departing once at 19:40 PM EST.

There seems to be a problem here. It had 45 mins from touchdown in San Francisco before it left in another city.

Recently reestablished, the "official Flight 93" began as a scheduled service from EWR (Newark) to SFO on September 5th 2001, but the first Tuesday flight in 2001, was on 9-11; there was no Newark to SF flight before.

On September 11th, BTS shows 591UA for "Flight93" with a Wheels-off Time at 08:28 AM EST, but which tail departed?
And did it really reach Shanksville?



I also followed N591UA and found the same irregularities:

1) San Francisco International (SFO)

Scheduled Arrival Time: UA 09/10/2001 0075 N591UA EWR 17:29 PM EST

with almost 3 hours delay:
Wheels on Time: UA 09/10/2001 0075 N591UA EWR 22:07
Actual Arrival Time: UA 09/10/2001 0075 N591UA EWR 22:15
Scheduled Departure Time: UA 09/10/2001 0078 N591UA EWR 22:05 PM EST
Wheels off time: UA 09/10/2001 0078 N591UA EWR 23:15

2) Newark (EWR)

Scheduled Arrival Time: UA 09/10/2001 0078 N591UA SFO 6:22
Actual Arrival Time: UA 09/10/2001 0078 N591UA SFO 7:01
Wheels-on Time: UA 09/10/2001 0078 N591UA SFO 6:54 <----!!!
Scheduled Departure Time: UA 09/10/2001 0075 N591UA SFO 14:30
Actual Departure Time: UA 09/10/2001 0075 N591UA SFO 18:30
Wheels-off-Time: UA 09/10/2001 0075 N591UA SFO 19:40

A look to Chicago and Boston:

3) O'Hare International (ORD, Chicago)

Wheels-on Time: UA 09/10/2001 0507 N591UA BOS 8:39
Actual Arrival Time UA 09/10/2001 0507 N591UA BOS 8:48
Scheduled Arrival Time: UA 09/10/2001 0507 N591UA BOS 9:07 AM EST
Wheels off time: UA 09/10/2001 0642 N591UA EWR 10:43 AM EST <----!!
Scheduled Departure Time: UA 09/10/2001 0642 N591UA EWR 10:30 AM EST

4) Boston (BOS)
Scheduled Arrival Time: UA 09/10/2001 N591UA NONE
Actual Arrival Time: UA 09/10/2001 N591UA NONE
Wheels-on Time: UA 09/10/2001 N591UA NONE

however...
Actual Departure Time: UA 09/10/2001 0507 N591UA ORD 7:26
Scheduled Departure Time: UA 09/10/2001 0507 N591UA ORD 7:30
Wheels of Time: UA 09/10/2001 0507 N591UA ORD 7:39 <---!!!!

2) New "flight plans" of Flight93

More oddities have been recognised by researcher Frank Levi.
The estimated arrival times of "Flight 93" (aka N591UA) starting at 2:15 PM, then it changes SOUTH of Pittsburgh, well after it was hijacked and a new flight plan was filed to 10:28.

Also another close researcher pointed out to me, that all flights were being diverted by the time 93 was officially hijacked. And yet the transcripts give the impression that it was still on its way to San Francisco at the time.

According to some hobby plane spotters, N591UA was still flying in 2003.
Some researchers also indicated that this original UA-flight is "masked" as N594UA.
There is a website, which shows 23 Boeing 757s, which were ordered, but never built.
What happened with them?

info from ...
 http://www.bts.gov/

reading...
 http://airgames.bravehost.com/Flight93.html
 http://airgames.bravehost.com/air_oddities.html
 http://airgames.bravehost.com/

Flights AA11 and AA77 on Sep.11 2001 did not exist!
 http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=74017

Brad
www.911index.batcave.net

Good post... 22.Oct.2004 22:27

Tony Blair's dog

Thank you!

author update - flight explorer 22.Oct.2004 22:40

brad

here is the post that flight explorer said it was changed at 10:10

Virginia company tracks terror flights
15:26 EDT Tuesday Taylor Lincoln
Potomac Tech Journal
A Fairfax, Va., company that tracks and records the flight paths of airplanes has released
dramatic animated illustrations of the flight path of the Boston-Los Angeles American Airlines flight that is believed to be the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center Tuesday morning.
Flight Explorer, which received requests for the illustrations from about 12 news agencies

including all the major networks, also has learned that a United Airlines plane bound from Newark to San Francisco that crashed near Pittsburgh, Pa., at 10:10 a.m. had its flight path diverted. The flight was changed to arrive at Reagan National Airport, in Northern Virginia, Krawczyk said.
"When it got outside of Pittsburgh, it actually had a flight plan change to DCA," said Krawczyk said. "We hardly ever get a flight plan change. Very unusual." Until the past few years, Flight Explorer was the only company that recorded flight paths and received frequent requests from the Federal Aviation Administration for recordings of flights, Krawczyk said.
After the death of golfer Payne Stewart in 1999, the FAA began recording flight paths, Krwczyk said. The company had not heard from the FAA by Tuesday afternoon
 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/520395/posts?page=108#108

paper planes 22.Oct.2004 22:40

Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien & Crew

>>>There is a website, which shows 23 Boeing 757s, which were ordered, but never built.
What happened with them?


They were never built!

Please DELETE This Other 23.Oct.2004 11:04

DUPLICATE Post


Similar BTS anomalies for N612UA (Aircraft used for UA Flight 175 on 9/11/01 03.Dec.2004 11:41

M. Kato mkato@optonline.net

BTS logs show similar anomalies for N612UA, the United Airlines Boeing 767-200 that presumably crashed into 2WTC on 9/11/01 at 9:03.

E.g., on 9/7/01, UA Flight 845 (N612UA) took off from JFK at 9:13 and landed at SFO (San Fran) at 12:07. UA Flight 170 (N612UA) then took off from SFO at 13:57 for BOS (Logan) and landed there on 9/7 at 22:57. Then, there is no "official" BTS record of any activity for N612UA out of BOS on 9/7, 9/8, 9/9 and 9/10/01. The aircraft was apparently out of service for three days. Then, on 9/11, N612UA was used for UA Flight 175, which took off for LAX at 7:58.

However, on 9/10/01, UA Flight 845 (N612UA-according to BTS records) took off from JFK at 9:11 bound for SFO and landed there at 12:11. N612UA then departed SFO at 13:30, bound for BOS(???), and landed there at 21:57, a repeat of the sequence of flights that occurred on 9/7/01.

This was a strange occurrence, though, since N612UA had never "officially" left BOS after it landed there from SFO at 22:57 on 9/7/01 until the morning of 9/11/01!!

The tail number confusion may be innocent and based on human error, but until that is determined, this line of inquiry must be followed by researchers with the time and patience to do it.

M. Kato

Change of flight plans... 03.Aug.2005 16:10

Some pilot

I am a licensed pilot and all I have to add is that changing an airliner's flight plan is not only unusual... It requires a very good reason. All airliners fly on instrument flight plans. what this means is they have to anwser to ATC concerning their exact location at a precise moment in time. Example: Flight XXX will be at checkpoint A at N hours and X minutes of the flight and at Checkpoin B at X and y minutes hours and minutes... ect. This is necessary to keep airliners from smashing into each other in midair and to keep track of where everybody is and what they are up to so as to prevent foul play. Changing the transponder is also unusual for an airliner on a fixed flight plan except that when a flight plan is amended the transponder code may change as well.

Just HOW do you change a transponder? 24.Jul.2006 22:43

wonderer

Question:

Just HOW do you change a transponder? It is something physical or electronic or just broadcasting computer info? ???