Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Q24

9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses

1,812 posts in this topic

Sorry gents, I guess I was too vague.

The load factor I was referring to was passenger load factor, 100% being all seats filled, the most profitable situation for the airline.

There is a passenger load that is break-even, and anything above is profit, anything below a loss.

About 200 passenger seats on the 75/76 series. The flights in question carried about 50, so the loads were light. My bet is that below 50% is a loss of revenue.

Today the airlines have it honed to quite a fine art, with most flights being full, and some overbooked. Even back in 2001 it was rare to have such a light load, especially for transcontinental flights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Passenger seats aren't the only source of revenue on comercial flights. They often carry mail as well.

Even with a break even point (which you've only blindly speculated about where it is) it doesn't mean they won't fly the plane if they have less. These were Tuesday flights and one would think the majority of transcontinental flights would be used by businessmen and those would be on late Sunday, Early Monday with return flights later in the week. Light loads are also a sign of an industry in trouble which was seen in the bad news the airlines had BEFORE 911 which can explain the put options. Airlines in general weren't doing all that well and American and United had both recently had bad news. Both companies' share price was already dropping.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Put_Options

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks!! :tu:

Welcome, Skipper! :tu:

And maybe, just maybe, it will be explained what the point is to this stuff.

Maybe the planes were well under gross, but so what?

That's certainly not a total rarity.

I was just wondering if it could be explained where we're going here?

:whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome, Skipper! :tu:

And maybe, just maybe, it will be explained what the point is to this stuff.

Maybe the planes were well under gross, but so what?

That's certainly not a total rarity.

I was just wondering if it could be explained where we're going here?

:whistle:

I don't really know, but the 9/11 CT folks have been pulling things out of thin air lately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree gents, in and of itself, the passenger load factor is rather meaningless. Over the years, but not lately, I have flown on several flights that were less than half full. However the airlines work very hard, obviously, to have all flights as loaded as possible. Hence the phenomenon of over booking.

The curious point is that all 4 of the flights were considerably under booked. Not 1 of 4, not 2 of 4, but all 4. Just a curious irregularity so typical of the events of the day. Irregular events and details are the hallmark of 11 September.

There was a story early on that the bad guys had actually bought a bunch of seats in fake names, but that story never gained any traction and was quickly abandoned, apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The curious point is that all 4 of the flights were considerably under booked. Not 1 of 4, not 2 of 4, but all 4. Just a curious irregularity so typical of the events of the day. Irregular events and details are the hallmark of 11 September.

Yes, agreed, the events of 9-11-01 were mighty irregular...so irregular that they spawned an irregular mindset, which has been voluminously illustrated on this board!

There was a story early on that the bad guys had actually bought a bunch of seats in fake names, but that story never gained any traction and was quickly abandoned, apparently.

Maybe becauise they didn't, and we klnow everyone who had a seat on all those airplanes that day?

The real mystery here...which no one seems to want to address...is:

How could we have allowed this to happen?

Jack Kennedy once wrote a book called, "Why England Slept".

One day, someone will write a book called, "Why The United States Slept," and will answer my question...

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there have been a number of books written about it MID. Perhaps one day you will avail yourself of them. I think my favorite is Crossing The Rubicon by Michael Ruppert.

Yes, the events were so irregular that they have made otherwise curious men become morbidly UNcurious. They accept the official story with no questions at all. A complete lack of critical thinking, resulting in an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.

"We" allowed this to happen in the same way that "we" allowed Bernie Madoff do what he did, or what Wall Street did with TARP.

Which is to say that with the exception of our utter credulity, "we" were completely powerless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there have been a number of books written about it MID. Perhaps one day you will avail yourself of them. I think my favorite is Crossing The Rubicon by Michael Ruppert.

Is that how you conceive what you perceived as evidence? I could write a fictional book implicating the airlines in the 9/11 attacks and watch as the 9/11 CT post that false information all over the Internet. After all, we have watched certain people present false information on the Internet that was later taken up by the 9/11 CT folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky

Perhaps you forgot to take your Ginkgo Biloba today, but it was me that you fooled with your 'simulated' video of the F-18 crashing into a building. You fooled me once sir, but you won't fool me again.

If I need to find examples of a person playing fast and loose with the evidence, I always come back to you.

You can poke fun at Michael Ruppert to your heart's content, but I will consider the source.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky

Perhaps you forgot to take your Ginkgo Biloba today, but it was me that you fooled with your 'simulated' video of the F-18 crashing into a building. You fooled me once sir, but you won't fool me again.

How amusing when I told you about that building that had nothing to do with that F-18. Seems you forgot.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

N.O.R.A.D was asleep that day the anti aircraft system on the pentagon roof did not activate surface to air missiles

would easily be seen .Mid air explosions would easily be seen what anyone who believed they saw an aircraft saw was a

remote controlled drone(with wings) impact the pentagon .As the experts and undeniable evidence reveals titanium built

engines on commercial aircraft never disintegrate or completely vanish .Their is no trace of these massive engines in

any media directly after the crash or any pentagon security cameras which also failed to capture the aircraft approach

it the most protected airspace in the world has no footage of what hit it

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please post proof that The Pentagon even has anti-aircraft missiles on the roof. Or that it is the most protected airspace. You did know the Pentagon is directly UNDER the flight path for an internation airport right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't think its protected air space? or they have the ability to destroy a threat what the hell

has a international airport have to do with protected airspace .Its not a no fly zone it has many

military protocols associated with its existence as a primary command center.The white house

has similar defenses the fact they are in built up areas does not deter the government from

protecting national land marks.All aircraft have transponders that tell them exactly where they

should be hence an airport can exist in close proximity.The pentagon wont send me the

schematics sorry .The preferred plan of attack is interception by fighters which also seemed

to of failed on that day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't think its protected air space? or they have the ability to destroy a threat what the hell

has a international airport have to do with protected airspace .Its not a no fly zone it has many

military protocols associated with its existence as a primary command center.The white house

has similar defenses the fact they are in built up areas does not deter the government from

protecting national land marks.All aircraft have transponders that tell them exactly where they

should be hence an airport can exist in close proximity.The pentagon wont send me the

schematics sorry .The preferred plan of attack is interception by fighters which also seemed

to of failed on that day

I don't think you have proof that it is. Has anybody EVER seen these defenses? Since it is in the direct landing and takeoff path of major airport, surely somebody has seen them. Or taken a picture. What about planes that have failed transponders? Protected airspace works best if people flying actually know it is there so they can avoid it if necessary. Unlike over the White House (where there is a prohibited airspace) there is no special airspace over the Pentagon.

Yes, it is a command center but it far more so an office building. The secure sections are far underground.

Edited by frenat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chezarelli

The Pentagon itself is not specifically protected, but the White House is protected by restricted airspace, P 56 as depicted on all navigation charts.

I'm not sure of the exact distance, but looking at a chart, the Pentagon is very close to P56. It's been common knowledge for many years that the White House IS protected by SAM and other measures.

While your details are off a tiny bit, your larger point is valid. Like every other part of the US air defenses that day, the defenses for P56 were "on vacation" and never called into actions.

But hey, the government says it was somebody else, and the government never lies.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chezarelli

The Pentagon itself is not specifically protected, but the White House is protected by restricted airspace, P 56 as depicted on all navigation charts.

I'm not sure of the exact distance, but looking at a chart, the Pentagon is very close to P56. It's been common knowledge for many years that the White House IS protected by SAM and other measures.

While your details are off a tiny bit, your larger point is valid. Like every other part of the US air defenses that day, the defenses for P56 were "on vacation" and never called into actions.

But hey, the government says it was somebody else, and the government never lies.

Of course it was somebody else. After all, the United States received warnings from other countries that foreign terrorist were in the process of carrying out their attacks and on 9/11/2001, those foreign terrorist did just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Forum knew their was some kind of defence systems in place i still believe both air spaces

are heavily monitored tho pentagon being a command hub would have to warrant this.It does show

you guys are prepared to use this type of weapon system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Forum knew their was some kind of defence systems in place i still believe both air spaces

are heavily monitored tho pentagon being a command hub would have to warrant this.It does show

you guys are prepared to use this type of weapon system

Sometimes, things don't always go as planned.

CRASH AT THE WHITE HOUSE: THE OVERVIEW; Unimpeded, Intruder Crashes Plane Into White House

Shortly before 2 A.M. today, a small red-and-white plane flew low over 17th Street in the heart of the capital's downtown, banked left in a U-turn near the Washington Monument, and headed straight toward the President's bedroom in the White House. No one tried to stop it.

Administration officials, who pieced together the flight path, said that the Secret Service agents stationed outside the South Portico had only seconds to scramble out of the way as the two-seat, propeller-driven Cessna 150, its power apparently shut off and only its wing lights on, came straight at them.

http://www.nytimes.c...nted=all&src=pm

Radar Detected Airplane before White House Crash

The plane that slammed against the White House early Monday morning had been detected by radar at National Airport minutes before the crash, according to federal investigators who are trying to determine why Secret Service officers guarding the mansion weren't warned of the aircraft's approach.

Frank Eugene Corder, 38, a student pilot with a history of alcohol and drug abuse, stole the single-engine Cessna from an airfield north of Baltimore and died in the crash, officials said. Initial interviews with associates of Corder suggest the crash was intentional, federal officials said, but they said they did not believe it was politically motivated.

FBI and Secret Service investigators plan to pore over Federal Aviation Administration records to determine what the FAA's radar showed, whether it seemed to indicate a potential threat, and what was done with the information, federal sources said.

http://tech.mit.edu/V114/N40/crash.40w.html

As you can see, intelligence blunders are nothing new.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't think its protected air space? or they have the ability to destroy a threat what the hell

has a international airport have to do with protected airspace .Its not a no fly zone it has many

military protocols associated with its existence as a primary command center.The white house

has similar defenses the fact they are in built up areas does not deter the government from

protecting national land marks.All aircraft have transponders that tell them exactly where they

should be hence an airport can exist in close proximity.The pentagon wont send me the

schematics sorry .The preferred plan of attack is interception by fighters which also seemed

to of failed on that day

Chez,

Your knowledge relating to restricted DC airspace is limited.

The Pentagon isn't actually covered by area P-56. That area encompasses the White house and the Vice President's residences.

There is no "plan of attack" for incursions into that airspace. , It's generally a report with a radar plot which will get the pilot some remedial action sent his way, and likely a meeting with thr Secret Service...but no shooting down and no intercepts.

This, there could've been no failure of the supposedly agressive plan you mentioned, since the Pentagon isn't in that restricted airspace, the aircraft's transponder had been cut off before 09:00 that day, and there was no plan for such an event.

You seem to think that fighters should've been dispatched to intercept the plane?

And do what?

Escort them to Andrews, or DCA?

Shoot it down over populated areas?

This whole thing just gets a little crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about it folks:

An airliner gets hijacked and flown to DC, only to circle around and slam into the Pentagon.

No real good radar contact...not much of anything.

Indeed, nothing like it had ever happened, anywhere.

What sort of plan do you devise for the unthinkable, and for that which there's never been any data on, or profile on?

Should they have dispatched fighters? To do what again?

Or fired those SAM missiles at the craft, exploding a jetliner over DC?

How do you plan for something unspeakable and never before seen anywhere like 9-11 was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right MID that some of the details get crazy, and that's when one must step back in hopes of seeing the proverbial big picture. Step back from the detail, and consider the big picture, or at least bigger picture.

And I've seen pictures of young USAF officers around a large table top model of the pentagon, smiling for the camera. Being a former ROTC candidate, I could relate to the posed photo. :yes:

Planning a HYPOTHETICAL and academic attack on the Pentagon, for defensive purposes is what they were doing. It's the military way of doing things, and I went through it for a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right MID that some of the details get crazy, and that's when one must step back in hopes of seeing the proverbial big picture. Step back from the detail, and consider the big picture, or at least bigger picture.

And I've seen pictures of young USAF officers around a large table top model of the pentagon, smiling for the camera. Being a former ROTC candidate, I could relate to the posed photo. :yes:

Planning a HYPOTHETICAL and academic attack on the Pentagon, for defensive purposes is what they were doing. It's the military way of doing things, and I went through it for a few years.

Sure. Been there done that.

But I never knew anyone, from Bird Colonel to ROTC candidate who could've conceived of 9-11.

What's tyour idea of the "big or bigger picture"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bigger picture of ALL the evidence, not just the evidence displayed at the commission hearings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bigger picture of ALL the evidence, not just the evidence displayed at the commission hearings.

Yes, there's obviously something gathwered by official investigative bodies which wasn't presented at the official investigative hearings.

Why would that be, and what was it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.