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

9.11 investigation

The Strange Appearance, Disappearance and Reappearance of N612UA

This article discusses some apparent anomalies regarding the flight history of N612UA prior to its use by United Airlines for Flight 175 that, according to the "official" story, crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, at 9:03.
Several 911 researchers have analysed the Department of Transportation's ("DOT") Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Detailed Statistics ("BTS/DS") logs that show the comings and goings of commercial air carrier domestic, scheduled, non-stop flights. (The DOT's BTS also publishes Summary Statistics, but we are not concerned with the information contained in that database.)

The researchers have culled from the BTS/DS several curious facts that they have used to draw some provocative conclusions. I do not wish to rehash that valuable work here. But, in reviewing it, I came across an apparent gap in the coverage of 911 flights that I would now like to share with you. And, if this turns out to be ground that has already been covered, I can only offer my apologies and will humbly suffer the charge of having unnecessarily reinvented the wheel. As a defense, I can only point out that there is a lot of information posted on the internet related to 911 research and that there are only so many hours in a day.

I reviewed the BTS/DS logs for the scheduled flight history of N612UA, a United Airlines Boeing 767, for the period September 1 through September 11, 2001. N612UA was the aircraft assigned to United Airlines Flight 175 that took off from Boston's Logan International Airport ("BOS") on September 11 at 7:58, "wheels-off," 8:23 - the time the plane actually left the ground - (all subsequent departure times represent wheels-off times) and, according to the "Official Government Story," crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center at 9:03a.m.

But, before I begin, a word about the BTS/DS logs themselves. Per FAA regulation, 19 major domestic air carriers are required to submit detailed statistics on their scheduled, non-stop, domestic flights to the DOT's BTS on a monthly basis. They show scheduled and actual departure and arrival times, airborne times, cancellations, diversions and a few other categories reagarding these flights.

The BTS/DS logs are generally "accurate" but errors have been found in them and there is a suspicion that some of these errors may in fact be the result of deliberate alterations to the logs. I have no way of checking whether this allegation is true, but I would not automatically rule out the possibility either. Nonetheless, most of the errors I have found are related to N or Tail and Flight number transpositions and a few errors related to one Tail number being assigned to two different flights during the same relative time frame. All errors of these types may simply be due to "fat fingers" or they may, indeed, suggest tampering. Again, at the moment, the resolution of this issue is problematic. With that said, let's follow the movements of N612UA during the time frame I reviewed.

On 9/1/01, N612UA, as Flight 20, leaves San Francisco International Airport ("SFO"), bound for John F. Kennedy International Airport ("JFK"). at 7:10, local time. (All subsequent departures times cited will reflect local times.) It is 10:10 in New York City. The flight arrives there at 14:54, "wheels-on." (All subsequent arrivals represent wheels-on times times.) After a short stay, N612UA leaves for Los Angeles International Airport ("LAX"), now as Flight 11, at 16:48. N612UA finishes the day at LAX, where it lands at 18:55.

Om 9/2/01, N612UA, as Flight 10, leaves LAX at 7:09 and arrives at JFK at 14:48. Then, N612UA is not assigned to a scheduled non-stop flight for twenty-six hours. It apparently was parked somewhere at JFK during this inactive period, although it could have been used for an unscheduled flight, or for a scheduled flight with stops. Keep in mind that the BTS/DS logs only reflect the use of aircraft for scheduled, non-stop, domestic flights. I will address the periods of N612UA's apparent non-use for scheduled, non-stop, domestic flights in more detail later on.

On 9/3/01, N612UA, as Flight 11, takes off from JFK for LAX at 16:48 and arrives there at 18:53. Then, it remains unscheduled, according to BTS/DS criteria, for 7 hours and 26 minutes.

Tuesday, September 4 - one week before the course of history was to irrevocably change for the worse - was a busy day for N612UA. According to the BTS/DS logs, it takes off from LAX to JFK as Flight 10 at 7:13 and arrives in New York at 15:05. It departs JFK as Flight 5, bound for SFO, and lands there at 19:06. It then apparently remains unscheduled at SFO for 13 hours and 18 minutes.

On 9/5/01, N612UA, as Flight 22, leaves SFO for JFK at 8:12 and arrives there at 16:09. (The BTS/DS log for 9/5/01 also shows that United Airlines Flight 18, which left LAX for JFK on 9/4 at 21:59 with Tail number N620UA, is recorded in the BTS/DS log as "N612UA." This is apparently a "mistake" of the type that I briefly mentioned above.) At 17:56, N612UA, as Flight 29, departs for LAX and arrives there at 20:06. Then, at 22:06, N612UA, as Flight 18, leaves LAX for JFK and arrives there on 9/6/01 at 5:57, but the Tail number is recorded in the BTS/DS log as "N605UA," another apparent "mistake."

Thursday, September 6, is a busy day for N612UA. Starting at 10:11, it leaves JFK for LAX, as Flight 17, and arrives there at 12:22, turns around and, as Flight 14, departs for JFK at 14:29. It lands at JFK at 22:11. Then, it is not used for a scheduled flight, according to BTS/DS criteria, for 11 hours and 24 minutes. This aircraft seems to have had a lot of down time, if it wasn't being used for other purposes. But, this is just for starters. The big hiatus in N612UA's usage is yet to come.

On 9/7/01, N612UA, as Flight 845, leaves JFK for SFO at 9:35 and arrives there at 12:01. Then, as Flight 170, N612UA leaves SFO for BOS at 14:18 and arrives there at 22:50.

It is at this point that the future movements and whereabouts of N612UA become muddled and confusing, according to the information that was submitted to the BTS by United Airlines. After N612UA lands at BOS on 9/7/01 at 22:50, there is no further scheduled usage from there until 9/11/01, when it is assigned to Flight 175, scheduled to take off for LAX at 8:00. It goes aloft at 8:23 and flies into history. Apparently, United Airlines had no use for N612UA, at least for a scheduled, domestic, non-stop flight, for 3 days, 9 hours and 33 minutes. The obvious question to ask is what was the Boeing 767 doing all of this time?

There are several possible answers. The most obvious one is that N612UA simply was not used. Or, it was being used for scheduled, domestic, non-stop flights, but the Tail number was not accurately reported to the BTS. Also possible is that it may have been used for scheduled flights with stops. Another possibility is that it was either being serviced, repaired, or a combination of the two. Finally, it may have been used either to make unscheduled non-stop flights or unscheduled flights with stops. The BTS/DS logs can help us somewhat to partially solve this mystery. but, in doing so, it only serves to raise other questions.

Referring to the BTS/DS log for JFK deoartures on 9/11/01, we find recorded there an entry for Flight 845, scheduled to leave for SFO at 9:15. It goes aloft at 9:40. The flight is using N612UA. The only conclusion we can draw, absent the possibility that a recording mistake had been made prior to this departure, is that N612UA took an unscheduled flight from BOS at some point between the time it landed at BOS on 9/7/01 at 22:50 and 9/10/01 at 9:40 when it took off for SFO. But, there is no BTS/DS log entry of it arriving at JFK from BOS prior to the 9/10 flight that took off from JFK at 9:40. In any case, Flight 845 lands at SFO at 12:07. N612UA turns around as Flight 170 and takes off for BOS at 13:44. It arrives there at 21:50. It apparently remains at BOS until 9/11/01 when, at 8:23, it takes off for LAX as Flight 175.

Thus, disregarding the possibility that N612UA took more than one unscheduled flight since arriving at BOS on 9/7/01, it apparently sat idle for almost two and a half days. Again, what was it doing there all of that time? Was it simply a case of equipment overcapacity and United Airlines had no use for it? Or, was it undergoing maintenance, repairs, a combination of both or something else entirely? Only United Airlines can answer these questions.

Adding to the mystery sorrounding N612UA is the fact that its registration is still active in the FAA database for N or Tail numbers, as is N591UA, the Boeing 757 that was used for Flight 93 and apparently crashed in a Pennsylvania field on 9/11/01 at 10:03. By way of comparison, American Airlines cancelled the registrations for N644AA (the Boeing 757 that was used for Flight 77 and apparently crashed into the Pentagon) and N334AA (the Boeing 767 that was used for Flight 11 and apparently crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center). The reason given for both cancelled registrations is "Destroyed." Again, only United Airlines can explain why its two apparently hijacked and destroyed planes still have active registrations.

Further, the answer cannot be due to new replacement planes and the reassignment of the Tail numbers to them since the years of manufacture given for N612UA and N591UA, as recorded in the FAA database, are 1983 and 1996, respectively.

Beyond this conundrum is the apparent fact that N591UA was noted at O'Hare Airport by a United Airlines employee named Dave Friedman and duly recorded in his personal flight log as the equipment used for United Airlines Flight 1111 on 4/10/03, when he flew in it to Las Vegas. (See friedmanfamily.org/ua2003/). Incidentally, in the "guest book" link on Friedman's web page, there are two entries from "Joe" and "GS" asking how he could have possibly flown on N591UA when it no longer exists? As of 12/14/04, Dave Friedman has not responded to these queries. Curious, yes?

In conclusion, I can only say that I have no answers to the questions that this article may raise. Although I have suspicions, they are not supported by any facts that would lend weight to them. Therefore, I will leave it to the readers to take the information contained herein at its face value and let them formulate their own scenarios regarding the mystery of N612UA's appearance, disappearance and reappearance during the period I reviewed.

Very interesting information. 14.Dec.2004 17:55

Tony Blair's dog

Thank you.

good stuff... 14.Dec.2004 23:43

brad

as far as friedmanfamily.org/ua2003 goes...
i thought it might be an accident, maybe he just wrote it down wrong, but he included the NOSE number (check the website)
In the other logs, some of the nose numbers are different than the tail numbers.
in other words, it is very doubtful that he just tried to cross-refference it, since he did not do that with the other flights he recorded.
(actually, i was the one who found the friedman link doing a google search)

for 591UA i backtracked the tail numbers and found that it was in 2 places at one time !
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/300588.shtml
 http://911bts.brad.com/2-591s.html
594UA is strange as well...
 http://www.911bts.brad.com/
This stuff is recorded by ACARS electronically, though i think that an airline employee may have the ability to change that data?

speaking of the BTS, a lot of the info for sept 10th is missing, as well as the info for sept11th early BEFORe the events started happening. many tail#'s were not recorded, or times of arrival.
there is no reason that data should not be there, most of it comes from ACARS.
 http://sept10-01.brad.com/

it is starting to become apparent that someone had control of a lot of the computer "talk" (ACARS ARINC etc..) before the events started.

Anyone want to call UA and ask them what the heck was going on ?
Brad


Tail Talk 15.Dec.2004 14:48

Kato

TBd - you are welcome.

Brad - Friedman was an almost "too-good-to-be-true" find, thank you for that one. And, yet, although I think Dave is the genuine article (just look at those pictures of him!), I think he might be trying to pull everyone's chain on the 591 tail entry. As you know, the tail entry on the BTS log for Dave's 1111 flight is "N594UA." I personally believe that 591 is gone. But, who knows, at this point? So, Dave's log cannot be discounted, but I wouldn't fall in love with it either. But, those UA active registrations make no sense, at all.

Tail Talk 15.Dec.2004 16:55

Kato

Good piece of sleuthing on the Friedman hit, Brad. I know the guy's for real, but I have a suspicion that he's pulling the collective chain with the 591 entry. (You know BTS shows "594" for UAFl.1111.) From his photos, old Dave looks like a bit of a joker. For my money, 591 is gone. But, then there are those active registrations??? In any case, it's a curiousity.

You're welcome, TBd.

brad 17.Dec.2004 00:56

NO WAY ? re 594UA ??? !!! peace4u4@ml1.net

"You know BTS shows "594" for UAFl.1111"

I knew it was flight 1111 and that is want 591, BUT....
594UA ?
WOW !?

the same thing happened to 594 on sept 10th !
it was in 2 places at one time !

IMHO, these planes were swapped on sept 10th.
the BTS records what ACARS tells it, and UA employees can change that data from my limited understanding.
ACARS can also be fooled ( or electronically altered?)
something VERY interesting is going on here...

Interestingly, 594UA was seen on a "move archive" on dec 30 2001
does anyone know what the heck that is?

PHOENIX(PHX) 12.30.01
MOVEMENTS
N594UA, UNITED 757
 http://www.cactuswings.com/blogs/2001_12_30_movearchive.html

ya might wanna check these articles as well...

 http://www.rense.com/general56/flfight.htm

 link to www.democraticunderground.com


 http://911bts.brad.com/594.html
Sept 10th 2001...

594 departed ORD at 7:30 to DTW as 0440
594 departed Detroit at 11:12 to ORD as 1581
594 arrived in chicago from DTW at 10:58 as 1581
594 Departed ORD at 12:00 to IAD as 0424
594 arrived in IAD from ORD at 14:13 as flight 0424
594 departed IAD at 15:56 to DEN as flight 1179
594 arrived in DEN from IAD at 17:07 as flight 1179
594 departed DEN to SEA as 1197 at 18:10
594 arrived in SEA from DEN as 1197 at 19:25
no departs from seattle on the 10th
no departs for seattle on the 11th (most tails unknwn)

important point being that it left DTW at 11:12 and arrived ORD at 10:58

594 departed Detroit at 11:12 to ORD as 1581
594 arrived in chicago from DTW at 10:58 as 1581

 http://911bts.brad.com/594.html

Brad
 http://911index.batcave.net/911.html


"move archive" 17.Dec.2004 08:27

kato

move archive is a business organizer.

Correction, Dave Friedman is not a UA employee - my mistake - he works for LifeComm Solutions, Inc., as VP & Chief Technical Officer. It's insurance-business related. As far as Dave being a joker, check out lifecomm.net/conquest/journal.html and scroll to the picture of his cabin door. This guy likes to kid. How did you find his reference to 591?

In my opinion, the business with the 594/591 swapping theory is a dead end. Better to make efforts to determine how much apparent down time the four hijacked planes had in the days immediately preceding 911.

no coincidence 594UA was flight 91 19.Dec.2004 19:17

brad peace4u4@ml1.net

i thought 594UA was used as flight 91 on sept 11th, thats what led me to 594UA.i cant remeber what led me to this, i dont remember all the backtracking i did.

The BTS doesnt show a tail number for flight 91 on sept 11th, but from the backtracking i have reason to beileve it may have been 594UA? i had traked that tail for some reason

 http://tinyurl.com/5rkwa

Also interesting, the history of Tail Number N519UA, which later became "flight91" during September 2001.Many passengers of "flight93" came originally from "flight91", which had tail number N519UA. Flight 91 was originally scheduled for after 9:00 AM, as mentioned in an article:That morning, (Mary Steiner) "called to check on her flight, Flight 91, due to leave after 9 A.M.. She moved up to Flight 93 for an earlier start..."
Officially the alleged hijackers booked their flights between August 24-29.
Therefore they possibly must have been on an original passenger list of Flight 91 as well, because Flight93 did not exist at that time (it was first scheduled on Sep5th, 2001)

incidenatlly SEVERAL reports came out on 911 that flight 93 was really 519UA?

 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=N519UA+93&btnG=Search


many passengers were transferred from flight 91 to flight 93, flight 91 was cancelled due to a crak in the windshield, though there is no official report on this, only a news story ?!

about 20 people were not scheduled for flight 93 till either sept 10th, ot 11th.
 http://the-movement.com/Flight%2093/something_strange_about_flight_9.htm
(we have added several to this list)
If others came from flight 91, was ANYONE scheduled for flight 93 origianlly?


I had a small list of tails that i backtracked bts data for before 911. 594 was one of them.
i found both 591 and 594 had simialar peculiarities. BOTH planes were in 2 places at one time on Sept 10th.
 http://911bts.brad.com/594.html
I have a VERy hard time believing this is a coincidence.
I checked several other flights as a control group , if you will.
NONE of the other flight dispayed this type of problem.
From what i understand, the data is recorded by ACARS
( im pretty sure both of these planes were ACARS equipped)
What i am not sure of is if the data can be changed by someone at UA, or somehwere else before it hits the BTS database?
The idea that both of these planes were in 2 places at one time on Sept 10th is too much for me to attribute to a coincidence.

AS far as Freidman goes his website was up for almost a year before i found it doing a google search on 591UA, i searhed for about an hour before i found that tail# on a page that didnt have anything to do with 911. i seriously doubt it was an intentional joke, why put it there if no one knows about it?


some more stats here...
The lost terror drill- Pt.11 B
 http://tinyurl.com/6j8dg

I have to think theres something to this, too many coicidences, and unexplainables...


fitted with REMOTE CONTROL 30.Oct.2005 10:10

u2r2h

Why not SAY what is on everyone's mind.

Come on, Boys and Girls! It was an inside job and the plane
was electronically prepared for the job.

Of course it was these clever technicians from the Air Bin Laden Group
and not the people from the DIA.
Photo taken of Pentagon just after impact on 911 (where went big passenger jet?)
Photo taken of Pentagon just after impact on 911 (where went big passenger jet?)

N612UA and N591UA 07.Nov.2005 14:56

Roland

The FAA web site now lists N612UA (United Flight 175) and N591UA (United Flight 93) as "Cancelled" as of 9/28/05, a little over four years after these two aircraft were destroyed on 9/11/01. What took United Airlines so long?

Friedman and Flight 91... 24.Nov.2005 22:55

brad

News from Friedman.
he said he read some about the 591UA thing.
he doesnt believe in conspiracies,
BUT...
He also said that he doubts that he wrote down BOTH number wrong !!!
(he had written down 591 as the tail number AND the NOSE number !!!)
too much of a coincidence for me.
that seals it,i am convinced now....


here is some intersting stuff about flight 91 (NOT 93)

#1689 | Friday, September 6th 2002
I was at Newark Airport getting on
flight 91, the next plane leaving
Newark for San Francisco. An asst picked
flight 91 over flight 93 for me.
The most troubling part of this story
for me is that I'm in law enforcement
and travel armed. In addition I was
meeting another agent on that flight
which means there were 2 of us armed
on the next flight.
 link to www.wherewereyou.org



BODLEY: Stockton. I told her that my daughter was the same age as her son. And that she died far away. And it, when I was, it's the same kind of pain. And then she told me that her son was working. He was the head of the household. And now she's left with her other children. And two boys. My daughter was Diora. She was going to Santa Clara University. She was 20 years old. She was majoring in psychology. She was on Flight 93. She had been, she had a reservation for Flight 91, which left an hour earlier. I mean, I'm sorry, an hour later. And her friends got her to the airport in time so that she could stand by to get on Flight 93 and come home a little bit earlier. And so she was on that plane. It was the one that the passengers charged the terrorists and took the plane, tried to take the plane over and it crashed in Pennsylvania. We went to the White House and the White House staff indicated to us that our, our family members that died on the plane were all heroes.
 http://www.commongroundradio.org/shows/02/0214.html


SCHEDULE FOR ENERGY SECRETARY ABRAHAM
Wednesday, April 18, 2001
6:00 PM TWA ]RLIGHTSOSTO ST. LOUIS
7:26 PM CmnfixmationNumber:.M204OE
SeatNumber: 4C
CarlsonWagonlit Emergency Travel Number'. 1-800-383-6723
*8:35 PM TWA FLIGHT 91*
10:20 PM Confirmation Numbcn.M204OE
Seat Number: 3D
9:00 AM MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT
9:50 AM Oval Office, White House
lead & Attending Staff:McSlarrow
Aucnding S_: KciSher
12:00 PM LUNCH WITH _ GREENSPAN
4:50 PM MEETING WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT
5:30 PM MEETING ON GAS PRICES AND OPEC

9:00 AM Arriveat Sandia


Flight 91 Ends The "Lindbergh Line's" Storied Run
The Dec. 1 Flight 91 to St. Louis ends 71 years of Trans World Airlines operations at Newark International Airport. From Dec. 1, TWA will be folded into parent AMR and flights will be serviced and leave from American Airlines terminals and counters. With this move, fabled TWA joins Pan Am and Eastern in that hangar in the sky.
(
Acknowledgement - NJ Online / The Star-Ledger 30 November 2001)
 http://www.santinis.co.za/news/archiveNovember2001.htm



WASHINGTON - On September 10, 1996, Arianespace successfully launched the ECHOSTAR II telecommunications satellite for Echostar Communications Corporation of the United States.
Flight 91 was carried out by an Ariane 42P, the version of the European launcher with two solid propellant strap-on boosters. This was the 62nd of 86 Ariane 4 launch vehicles ordered from the European space industry.
Liftoff from the European Space Port in Kourou, French Guiana took place on Tuesday, September 1Oth at: 9:00 p.m. local time in Kourou;8:00 p.m. in Washington, DC (EDT); 12:00 a.m. GMT (Wednesday, September 11th); 2:00 a.m. in Paris (Wednesday, September 11th).
 link to uss001.infi.net


ANC98LA148
On September 11, 1998, about 2315 Alaska daylight time, a Beech 1900C airplane, N1563C, sustained substantial damage during landing at the St. Mary's Airport, St. Mary's, Alaska. The airplane was being operated as Flight 91 on an instrument flight rules (IFR) cargo flight under Title 14 CFR Part 135 when the accident occurred. The airplane was operated by Alaska Central Express Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. The certificated airline transport pilot, the sole occupant, was not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the destination. An IFR flight plan was filed. The flight originated at the Anchorage International Airport, Anchorage, at 2133.
 https://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001211X10980&ntsbno=ANC98LA148&akey=1

 http://sept10.1accesshost.com/


Check your facts 21.Mar.2006 23:23

Dave Friedman

I am the person who has now been oft-cited as the "United Airlines Employee" who logged my flights in 2003, and referenced N591UA. Your site, as well as numerous others, have taken numerous liberties with what was intended to be a pure hobby.

1) I am not a UA employee, as would be plainly obvious to anyone who spent 2 minutes looking at my site
2) There is a clear disclaimer present now (though I agree it was not when you wrote your article) explaining the situation with the tail number. I generally recorded *either* the tail number *or* the nose number, and extrapolated the other based on the numbering scheme. It is VERY likely that I transcribed my notes incorrectly from that day's flight -- catching the numbers was a surprisingly difficult task depending on the angle that the aircraft was parked at the gate. In fact, the FAA database for that flight clearly indicates that the aircraft was N594UA, which would have been very easy for me to mis-transcribe on a numeric keypad as N591UA.
3) Why didn't I respond to the guestbook entries? Simple... I wasn't reading them by the time you wrote this article. The site was done purely for fun in 2003, and by August 2003 I had stopped maintaining it.
4) One comment above lists "news from Friedman" -- I'm not sure who that was from. See #2 as to how I recorded "both" wrong -- I rarely had the opportunity to see both the nose and tail numbers, so in about 90% of the cases, I extrapolated one from the other.

All of that being said, the various theories proposed about what may have happened on 9/11 certainly seem to carry some merit. I'm not convinced of the accuracy of either the official account or of the alternate theories. I am, however, convinced that my little website should not be considered evidence one way or another, as I can guarantee you there are several other typos to be found in my data as well. It was not scientific, and was done purely for fun.

Mr. Friedman 29.Apr.2006 00:49

Brad

Hi Mr. Friedman,
Thanks for responding.
Your site has given rise to lots of talk.
Though, I could swear i remember a post (or email) that you made before this one,
that said you "seriously doubt that you wrote both numbers down wrong" ?
I cant find the original you posted,
i was paraphrasing above, but i was not making it up.
Unless there was someone pretending to be you ?
Is this the first public post you have made on this subject ?
If not, please post the other, i would like to know if there is an imposter.

That out the way....
There are more compelling arguments to be made concerning
594UA.
the one that the BTS data shows that you flew.
This tail nember was in our data as being a possible "SWAP" with
the tail number 591UA (supposedly flight 93).
In looking at the data for september 10th,
i found 2 planes that were in the same place at the same time.
(not physically of course) but that is what the data says.
those 2 tail number were 591UA AND 594UA
so, you see, we had thought of the possibility that these 2 plaes
were swapped with each other on september 10th.
we had discussed this at length, BEFORE i stumbled upon your site.

So, i still believe that you did not write donw the wrong number.
this coincidence is way to far out the real of being plausible for me.

Also, you say...
"I generally recorded *either* the tail number *or* the nose number, and extrapolated the other based on the numbering scheme. "

many planes do NOT extrapolated prpoerly in that fleet.
In other words, the nose number and tail number may be wildly different.
UA has a very strange way of doing this.

On you website, it cleary showed that you had SEVERAL planes
that could not be transcribed,
If they were the data would be wrong.
I had double checked your other flights to see if some of the other tails
did not match the nose #, and every single one was correct.
(you were very thourough)

Sorry, but i really think you got it right the first time.

not to mention it was in Dulles late on september 10th (more odds ?)

AND, we cant find the data for 591 EVER GETTING TO DULLES.
but we DO have it for 594UA, that why we thought it was 594...

arrives in Dulles (IAD)
date flight# tail from schd arv act
9/10/2001 0424 594UA ORD 14:37 14:18



these are notes i took well beore i found your site...
the data below ahows there is almost an hour disscrepancy in the dulles flight.
(very rare to find that)
----

chicago
date flight# tail
9/10/2001 0440 594UA DTW 07:05 07:07 0070 0076 2 07:30 0023
9/10/2001 0424 594UA IAD 11:45 11:43 0112 0095 -2 12:00 0017

arrives in Dulles, BUT note the times? 95mins actuall elapse is correct,
but, it shows it leaves at 12:00 and arrives at 14:13 (over 2 hours) - 95mins= 1hr 35mins


arrives in Dulles (IAD)
Dulles arrive
date flight# tail from schd arv act schd elps act elps arv dly wh on taxi-in
9/10/2001 0424 594UA ORD 14:37 14:18 0112 0095 -19 14:13 0005

departs Dulles to Denver


Dulles depart
date flight# tail dest schd dpt act schd elps act elps dpt dly wh off taxiout
9/10/2001 1179 594UA DEN 15:32 15:32 0223 0220 0 15:56 0024
---
so we had suspected that these 2 planes were swapped.
when i checked the BTS data, and saw 594UA, i nearly fainted.
I hope you understand these implications, and how i felt.
appologies if it has caused you any distress.
If this is a red herring, i will be the first to admit it,
but i have no data to prove otherwise,
and everything points to these planes being swapped.

thanks
Brad
 http://911review.org


Mr. Friedman 29.Apr.2006 01:02

Brad

Hi Mr. Friedman,
Thanks for responding.
Your site has given rise to lots of talk.
Though, I could swear i remember a post (or email) that you made before this one,
that said you "seriously doubt that you wrote both numbers down wrong" ?
I cant find the original you posted,
i was paraphrasing above, but i was not making it up.
Unless there was someone pretending to be you ?
Is this the first public post you have made on this subject ?
If not, please post the other, i would like to know if there is an imposter.

That out the way....
There are more compelling arguments to be made concerning
594UA.
the one that the BTS data shows that you flew.
This tail nember was in our data as being a possible "SWAP" with
the tail number 591UA (supposedly flight 93).
In looking at the data for september 10th,
i found 2 planes that were in the same place at the same time.
(not physically of course) but that is what the data says.
those 2 tail number were 591UA AND 594UA
so, you see, we had thought of the possibility that these 2 plaes
were swapped with each other on september 10th.
we had discussed this at length, BEFORE i stumbled upon your site.

So, i still believe that you did not write donw the wrong number.
this coincidence is way to far out the real of being plausible for me.

Also, you say...
"I generally recorded *either* the tail number *or* the nose number, and extrapolated the other based on the numbering scheme. "

many planes do NOT extrapolated prpoerly in that fleet.
In other words, the nose number and tail number may be wildly different.
UA has a very strange way of doing this.

On you website, it cleary showed that you had SEVERAL planes
that could not be transcribed,
If they were the data would be wrong.
I had double checked your other flights to see if some of the other tails
did not match the nose #, and every single one was correct.
(you were very thourough)

Sorry, but i really think you got it right the first time.

not to mention it was in Dulles late on september 10th (more odds ?)

AND, we cant find the data for 591 EVER GETTING TO DULLES.
but we DO have it for 594UA, that why we thought it was 594...

arrives in Dulles (IAD)
date flight# tail from schd arv act
9/10/2001 0424 594UA ORD 14:37 14:18



these are notes i took well beore i found your site...
the data below ahows there is almost an hour disscrepancy in the dulles flight.
(very rare to find that)
----

chicago
date flight# tail
9/10/2001 0440 594UA DTW 07:05 07:07 0070 0076 2 07:30 0023
9/10/2001 0424 594UA IAD 11:45 11:43 0112 0095 -2 12:00 0017

arrives in Dulles, BUT note the times? 95mins actuall elapse is correct,
but, it shows it leaves at 12:00 and arrives at 14:13 (over 2 hours) - 95mins= 1hr 35mins


arrives in Dulles (IAD)
Dulles arrive
date flight# tail from schd arv act schd elps act elps arv dly wh on taxi-in
9/10/2001 0424 594UA ORD 14:37 14:18 0112 0095 -19 14:13 0005

departs Dulles to Denver


Dulles depart
date flight# tail dest schd dpt act schd elps act elps dpt dly wh off taxiout
9/10/2001 1179 594UA DEN 15:32 15:32 0223 0220 0 15:56 0024
---
so we had suspected that these 2 planes were swapped.
when i checked the BTS data, and saw 594UA, i nearly fainted.
I hope you understand these implications, and how i felt.
appologies if it has caused you any distress.
If this is a red herring, i will be the first to admit it,
but i have no data to prove otherwise,
and everything points to these planes being swapped.

thanks
Brad
 http://911review.org


oopppss... 29.Apr.2006 01:43

brad

Mr. Friedman,
sorry, i remembered where i saw this, it was on your site.
you say...
"Is there a chance that I captured one or the other numbers incorrectly? Certainly."
i took that to mean that you DO capture them seperately.

you say...
"Is it likely that both would have been incorrect? Not really,"
This also made me think that you wrote them down seperalty.
I am still confused as to how you transcride them though.
if it is not an incovienince, could you please clarify this point ?


for instance, the tail # N386UA on your site has a nose # of 7386

N835UA is 4035

also, some of the flights on you site have no nose, but do have a tail#
and some have a tail#, but no nose # ?
which made me think that if you couldnt see it, that you didnt write it down.

Again, sorry for the intrusion and hope it didnt cause you any problems.
Brad

for the other readers, here is the Note on your site...

Important note:
I have received many inquiries regarding the flight on 4/10/03 onboard United Airlines flight 1111. I am not trying to get into the middle of a conspiracy theory. I simply took notes on the aircraft's nose and tail numbers before boarding each flight. Is there a chance that I captured one or the other numbers incorrectly? Certainly. Is it likely that both would have been incorrect? Not really, but it's certainly possible. Is it really something I'm concerned about? Absolutely not. This was intended solely as a fun project to track my flights, a project which was derailed by heightened security concerns - people became too "alerted" when I would start making notes and taking pictures, so I stopped doing it. If you have a problem with the data on my page, well, you probably need to find more outside hobbies.

please explain?? 16.Jul.2007 20:41

Ioniss

Hi, I beielve that 9/11 was an inside job, however i do not understand what the point in swapping 594 and 591 would be? And if flight 93 never crashed then what happened to the passengers on the airplane and who made the phone calls from the aircraft? I just don't understand what the perpetrators of the attack had to gain by swapping the 2 aircraft. Are you guys suggesting that both 591 and 594 are still flying?

Typo 13.May.2013 14:00

Coursian

Paragraph 16 which starts, "Referring to the BTS/DS log for JFK deoartures on 9/11/01," has the wrong date. It should say, "Referring to the BTS/DS log for JFK departures on 9/10/01," also correcting the typo in the word "departures".

This is the only way to make sense of this part of a sentence, found later in the same paragraph, "prior to the 9/10 flight that took off from JFK at 9:40."

Again, confirmation is found at the end of this section: "In any case, Flight 845 lands at SFO at 12:07. N612UA turns around as Flight 170 and takes off for BOS at 13:44. It arrives there at 21:50. It apparently remains at BOS until 9/11/01 when, at 8:23, it takes off for LAX as Flight 175."

I am just trying to make a good article a little better. Keep up the good work!