911

[Q24]

Any evidence that these lingering doubts at all prevented them from doing their jobs, Q? Or did they reside in the back of their minds as they carried out the tasks they were trained for?

The exercise did not prevent anyone doing their job, though the lingering doubt and confusion did not make for the most efficient response possible. If each step in the chain of command first had to establish whether the situation were real world or exercise, then overall this could waste valuable minutes simply in pausing for that question and confirmation.

I just took a look and even General Eberhart told the 9/11 Commission “it took about 30 seconds” to make the adjustment to the real world situation (this is an estimate and the chances are he would understate this to present a favorable picture of NORAD’s performance). What's that, an additional 4 miles the aircraft could travel before NORAD even got in gear? So certainly the exercise created a delay in the response – it is possible this could have been longer had it been the case that NORAD temporarily assumed real world events were a part of the exercise.

What do you think of the NRO exercise I mentioned over the page? Just a bizarre coincidence (same departure airport and a civilian airliner crash at the same time and place Flight 77 passed) rather than a way to throw off the air defense response?

We can believe what we want but 747 was right above – the exercises would be a potential decoy to ensuring the airliners hit their targets. The only question to ask is was this the intended aim? When we look at those with the ability to put these exercises in place and the benefit of a successful attack to their agendas, it does all rather add up.

Then when we also come to realise there was a huge foul up in response to the Pentagon threat, with the Commission report also covering up the role of Cheney during this time… y’know, why am I going to say all is ok without an investigation putting clear answers on the table? I just don’t have that level of faith in the innocent nature of these people, as they have proven throughout their careers they do not deserve.

Let’s have an investigation. I want to know who planned and scheduled those exercises. I want a truthful, evidence based answer from NORAD (they have the records) about how long the delay was in switching from exercise to real world. I want to know who was responsible for overriding NORAD’s order for fighter cover over Washington. I want to know what Cheney’s order was in the PEOC.

Perhaps then I’d drop it, or get worse depending on the answers, but I'm not going to take anything on faith.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Q24

[skyeagle409]

BINGO!

Years ago, I remember reading the account of a young enlisted female who was participating in some part of Vigilant Guardian at her duty station at MacDill AFB in Tampa. She had been inside at a computer monitor all morning, and it was break time. She came out into the break room where there was a TV showing the towers smoking. She was absolutely amazed listening to the TV announcers, as they were describing the very same scenario she had been engaged in all that morning.

There were many wargames and anti-terrorist drills before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, among them;

2000-2001: ‘Planes as Weapons’ and ‘Simulated Attacks’ Part of Security Planning for Major Events in the US

A 1998 presidential directive gave the National Security Council authority to designate important upcoming events as National Special Security Events (NSSEs) (see May 22, 1998). The US Secret Service is in charge of planning and implementing security for NSSEs, and the FBI and FEMA also have major security roles. Louis Freeh, director of the FBI for much of the 1990s until June 2001, will later tell the 9/11 Commission that in the years 2000 and 2001, the subject of “planes as weapons” was always one of the considerations in the planning of security for “a series of these, as we call them, special events,” and “resources were actually designated to deal with that particular threat.” He confirms that “the use of airplanes, either packed with explosives or otherwise, in suicide missions” was “part of the planning” for NSSEs.

June 5, 2000: NORAD Exercise Simulates Hijackers Planning to Crash Planes into White House and Statue of Liberty

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) practices two scenarios in which aircraft are hijacked, and in one scenario the hijackers plan to crash the plane into the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor, while in the other the hijackers plan to crash into the White House in Washington, DC. The scenarios are included in a command post exercise conducted by the Continental United States NORAD Region called Falcon Indian. NORAD’s three air defense sectors in the continental United States, including the Northeast Air Defense Sector based in Rome, New York, are participating in this exercise.

October 16-23, 2000: NORAD Exercise Includes Scenarios of Attempted Suicide Plane Crashes into UN Headquarters in New York

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) practices scenarios based around suicidal pilots planning to deliberately crash stolen aircraft into the United Nations headquarters—a skyscraper in New York. The two scenarios are practiced on October 16 and October 23 as part of NORAD’s annual command post exercise called Vigilant Guardian. All of NORAD, including its Northeast Air Defense Sector based in Rome, New York, participates in this exercise.

October 24-26, 2000: Military Holds Exercise Rehearsing Response to a Plane Crash at the Pentagon

Pentagon and Arlington County emergency responders assemble in the Office of the Secretary of Defense conference room in the Pentagon for a mass casualty exercise (“MASCAL”). The exercise involves several mock-scenarios. One is of a commercial airliner crashing into the Pentagon and killing 341 people, while two others are a terrorist attack at the Pentagon’s subway stop and a construction accident. The plane crash exercise is conducted using a large-scale model of the Pentagon with a model airplane literally on fire in the central courtyard of the building. An Army medic who participates calls it “a real good scenario and one that could happen easily,” while a fire chief notes: “You have to plan for this. Look at all the air traffic around here.”

Edited August 10, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

Pollution....more pollution.

[skyeagle409]

Pollution....more pollution.

Facts, facts, and more facts! In fact, we've conducted additional exercises other than those I have posted, and conducted those exercises prior to the 9/11 attacks.

[DONTEATUS]

Maybe BR will give us a full idea on just really what He thinks happened ? With all the Eyes dotted,the Tee-teeed !,and the B.S. left out just for Drill !

[mrbusdriver]

Exercise or real world...

Exercise: Scramble aircraft, or put on Battle Stations awaiting further orders.

Real World: ditto.

The only problem was that there was confusion as to where the aircraft were (no comms with "targets", and non-squawking, so FAA had poor coverage) and what the situation/intentions were. This is not ever exercised in non-sterile airspace. Any real world/exercise ambiguities were quickly dispelled, and certainly not a factor in this case. The problem was that there was no NORAD/FAA coordinated procedure for the unique multiple events that morning.

[preacherman76]

I wasn't horrified. More of the same claptrap that's presented over and over as 'evidence'. Who is Alex Storm - sounds like an alias for a Marvel writer....

I must admit when Charlie Sheen got on his high horse (yep, he's in there) I was hoping someone would torpedo him with the truth.

Then you saw what you wanted to see, and didnt see what was actualy there.

[Antilles]

Then you saw what you wanted to see, and didnt see what was actualy there.

When Charlie Sheen tells me what I should believe, the jig is up as far as conspiracy theories about 9/11 are concerned.

I wonder if aliens could have been involved.....

[Babe Ruth]

Exercise or real world...

Exercise: Scramble aircraft, or put on Battle Stations awaiting further orders.

Real World: ditto.

The only problem was that there was confusion as to where the aircraft were (no comms with "targets", and non-squawking, so FAA had poor coverage) and what the situation/intentions were. This is not ever exercised in non-sterile airspace. Any real world/exercise ambiguities were quickly dispelled, and certainly not a factor in this case. The problem was that there was no NORAD/FAA coordinated procedure for the unique multiple events that morning.

You are certainly partially correct--in terms of response, there is little or no difference between Exercise and Real World.

What IS different is the mindset of those particpating, hence the questions asked by so many participants that day.

The question could be translated into "Is this just part of the (simulated) exercise, or is this really happening apart from the exercise?" Is this a simulation, or is this really happening?

The confusion sown by the Exercise was key to the initiation of the events of the day.

[Babe Ruth]

Antilles

I am sympathetic to your hesitance to believe Charlie Sheen. But let's not forget the beautiful Marion Cotillard!

However, what you are basically saying is that you will NOT hesitate to believe Dubya or Dick or Rudy, no matter the evidence.

That sir, is troublesome.

As for me, I like to do my own research and my own thinking, and make up my own mind.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Babe Ruth

[skyeagle409]

As for me, I like to do my own research and my own thinking, and make up my own mind.

Your research from P4T? That is not real research, it's is a joke!!

I could plant false information at that website and they, nor you, would even know the difference, and in fact, knowing your history, you would use such false information, thinking it supports your argument against us.

[mrbusdriver]

Listen to the tapes sometime...

These folks knew it was real world, and there was a lot of unknowns unfolding. How many hijackings, where were they, what direction were they heading? You can hear the "checklist" items in the questions asked to the FAA...type, airline, FOB, SOB, etc...this wasn't unfolding like any exercise and the frustration is clear. This sort of "multiple NORDO", non-squawking target scenario was never practiced in live flying over dense, non-sterile CONUS airspace, and the defense was indeed being "improvised" with the very few assets available.

It was unprecedented.

[Babe Ruth]

My bet is that I've listened to the tapes more times than you. And more importantly, I know several people who have dissected every aspect of the tapes on their own time, without government approval.

[skyeagle409]

My bet is that I've listened to the tapes more times than you. And more importantly, I know several people who have dissected every aspect of the tapes on their own time, without government approval.

From several people at the website of "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" who have been proven wrong time after time after time!! BTW, have they made corrections on ACARS yet?! Their credibility is not even worth a nickel judging from their numerous mistakes, lies, disinformation, and misinformation.

Edited August 11, 2012 by skyeagle409

[mrbusdriver]

My bet is that I've listened to the tapes more times than you. And more importantly, I know several people who have dissected every aspect of the tapes on their own time, without government approval.

How many of these folks have actually sat in those SOCC chairs, acting as SDs and WDs? Making those calls to the Sector coordinators at the FAA centers? Scrambled fighters? Controlled intercepts? Understand the ROE and coordination channels? Hell, they keep whining about why the F-15s didn't do m2.5 towards their targets...there's real world limitations for fighters doing intercepts, it's not like the SciFi channel movies or "Independence Day".

[+and-then]

A couple dozen hateful Muslims found a glaring blind spot in our way of thinking and we were punished for what we couldn't imagine. It's their ideology that caused this war and it will be that ideology that brings mankind to the brink of annihilation, IMO. The attacks weren't a conspiracy, just an evil perpetrated against an unsuspecting people who generally re of goodwill. All it really accomplished was to make the world a much worse place.

[Belial]

I hate to do this, but this copy / paste is really the only one I could find with a bunch in it....

Polls are polls...One side can tell you a number from a poll, and show you, while the other side can do the same.....

Personally, I think anyone whom thinks it was anything other than terrorists, well, they are idiots.....If I had to ask 30 people at work, I am pretty certain they feel the same.

Anyway, here ya go...

Zogby

The polls that have received the most widespread media attention are those conducted by Zogby International. The Zogby polls have been sponsored by organizations within the 9/11 Truth Movement including 911truth.org.

The first one was conducted in August 2004, on the eve of a Republican National Convention, on 808 randomly-selected residents of New York State. It found that 49 percent of New York City residents and 41 percent of New York state citizens believe individuals within the US government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act".^[4] The margin of error for this poll was 3.5 percent.

The second major Zogby poll on 9/11 was conducted in May 2006. It was a telephone interview of 1,200 randomly-selected adults from across the United States, consisting of 81 questions, with a 2.9 percent margin of error.^[5] Some of the questions asked include the following: "Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?"

• Responses: 48% No Cover-up / 42% Cover-up / 10% Not sure
  

"World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. This collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Are you aware of this skyscraper's collapse, and if so do you believe that the Commission should have also investigated it? Or do you believe that the Commission was right to only investigate the collapse of the buildings which were directly hit by airplanes?"

• Responses: 43% Not Aware / 38% Aware - should have investigated it / 14% Aware - right not to investigate it / 5% Not Sure
  

"Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense. Who are you more likely to agree with?"

• Responses: 47% Attacks were thoroughly investigated / 45% Reinvestigate the attacks / 8% Not Sure
  

The third major Zogby poll regarding 9/11 was conducted in August 2007. It was a telephone interview with a target of 1,000 interviews with randomly-selected adults from across the United States, consisting of 71 questions, with a 3.1 percent margin of error.^[6]

The results of the 2007 August poll indicate that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks and over 30% of those polled seek immediate impeachment. While only 32% seek immediate Bush and/or Cheney impeachment based on their personal knowledge, many citizens appear eager for clear exposure of the facts.

In addition, the poll also found that two-thirds (67%) of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Only 4.8 percent of the respondents agreed that members of the United States government "actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attack."

Newsweek Magazine polls

The Newsweek Magazine poll "What America Knows", conducted Princeton Survey Research Associates International, regularly asks American citizens a wide range of questions relating to world events past and present and a number of more trivial questions of general knowledge.^[7] On five occasions the following question has been asked: "Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"

• September 2003 responses: 47% Yes, 37% No, 16% not sure.
  
• January 2004 responses: 49% Yes, 39% No, 12% not sure.
  
• September 2004 responses: 42% Yes, 44% No, 14% not sure.
  
• October 2004 responses: 36% Yes, 51% No, 13% not sure.
  
• June 2007 responses: 41% Yes, 50% No, 9% not sure.
  

New York Times / CBS News polls

The first 9/11 poll carried out by the New York Times and CBS News was conducted in May 2002. The same 9/11 related question was asked again in April 2004 and October 2006. The 2002 and 2006 polls were apparently published for the first time not by CBS or the NYTimes, but by polling researcher AngusReid.com The 2004 NY/Times CBS poll is available at NYTimes.com (Question 77).

The 2004 poll was conducted by telephone with 1024 adults nationwide in the US, with a 3% margin of error.^[8] The 2006 poll was conducted by telephone on 983 randomly-selected citizens of the United States, with a 4% margin of error.^[9] One of the questions was the following: "When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?"

• May 2002 responses: 21% said "telling the truth", 65% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 8% said they are "mostly lying", 6% not sure.
  

• 3/30-4/1/04 CBS 24% said "telling the truth", 58% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 14% said they are "mostly lying", 4% not sure.
  
• 4/8/04 CBS 21% said "telling the truth", 66% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 10% said they are "mostly lying", 4% not sure.
  
• 4/23-27/04 24% said "telling the truth", 56% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 16% said they are "mostly lying", 4% not sure.
  

• Oct 2006 responses: 16% said "telling the truth", 53% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 28% said they are "mostly lying", 3% not sure.
  

New York Times / CBS News have conducted a number of polls on the Iraq War that have included the question: "Was Saddam personally involved in 9/11?"^[10]

• April 2003 responses: 53% said Yes, 38% said No.
  
• October 2005 responses: 33% said Yes, 55% said No.
  
• September 2006 responses: 31% said Yes, 57% said No.
  
• September 2007 responses: 33% said Yes, 58% said No.
  

Scripps Howard polls

A poll from July 2006, sponsored by Scripps Howard and conducted by Ohio University, surveyed 1,010 randomly-selected citizens of the United States, with a margin of error of 4 percent.^[11] The survey found that 36 percent thought it somewhat or very likely that U.S. officials either participated in the attacks or took no action to stop them^[12] because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.^[13] It made some statements relating to some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories and asked respondents to say whether they thought that the statements were likely to be true. Federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.

• 59% "not likely"
  
• 20% "somewhat likely"
  
• 16% "very likely"^[13][14]
  

The collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings.

• 77% "unlikely"
  
• 10% "somewhat likely"
  
• 6% "very likely"^[13][15]
  

The Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists.

• 80% "not likely"
  
• 6% "somewhat likely"
  
• 6% "very likely"^[13][16]
  

In November 2007 Scripps Howard surveyed 811 Americans about their beliefs in several conspiracy theories and asked this question^[17] How about that some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings. Is this very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely?

• 32% "Very Likely"
  
• 30% "Somewhat Likely"
  
• 30% "Unlikely"
  
• 8% "Don't Know/Other"
  

Other United States polls

Rasmussen Reports published the results of their poll May 4, 2007. According to their press release, "Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Young Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.", "Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure." and "Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view."^[18]

A poll reported in the Washington Post in September 2003 found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed Saddam Hussein was probably personally involved in the attacks.^[19]

In May 2007 the New York Post published results of a Pew Research Center poll of more than 1,000 American Muslims. It found that 40 percent agreed that "Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks," while 28 percent disagreed. Of the 28 percent that disagreed, a quarter (7 percent) believe that the US government is responsible.^[20]

In September 2009, a National Obama Approval Poll, by Public Policy Polling, found that 27% of respondents who identified themselves as Liberals, and 10% as Conservatives, responded "yes" to the question, "Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?"^[21]

A March 2010 poll conducted by the Angus Reid Public Opinion organization found that 15% of respondents found theories that the World Trade Center was brought down by a controlled demolition to be credible. Anywhere between 6 percent and 15 percent of respondents found credibility in claims that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down, that no airplanes hit the Pentagon or the World Trade Center.^[22]

And your an expert, and all who voiced an opinion within the 'surveys'.

I hold no water for or against on this topic, but to just shoot people who believe in something you see as ridiculous is to be honest with you arrogant.

[Babe Ruth]

How many of these folks have actually sat in those SOCC chairs, acting as SDs and WDs? Making those calls to the Sector coordinators at the FAA centers? Scrambled fighters? Controlled intercepts? Understand the ROE and coordination channels? Hell, they keep whining about why the F-15s didn't do m2.5 towards their targets...there's real world limitations for fighters doing intercepts, it's not like the SciFi channel movies or "Independence Day".

Probably none, but I'm not sure.

But the point is, one need not be in the military or FAA to be able to read and analyze written transcripts of the aforementioned tapes. As long as one can read and understand the language, the tapes speak for themselves, as long as they can be put and kept in context.

For example, why do you suppose 2 aircraft at BOS that morning were using the UA175 callsign? Why do you suppose there has been controversy since Day 1, even in the mainstream media, as to exactly which gate was used by American 11?

[Babe Ruth]

A couple dozen hateful Muslims found a glaring blind spot in our way of thinking and we were punished for what we couldn't imagine. It's their ideology that caused this war and it will be that ideology that brings mankind to the brink of annihilation, IMO. The attacks weren't a conspiracy, just an evil perpetrated against an unsuspecting people who generally re of goodwill. All it really accomplished was to make the world a much worse place.

Ah, but we COULD imagine it. Indeed, such a scenario was being played out that morning by way of Vigilant Guardian. If you're really curious about that, read Michael Ruppert's book Crossing the Rubicon.

[mrbusdriver]

Ah, but we COULD imagine it. Indeed, such a scenario was being played out that morning by way of Vigilant Guardian.

Really? So, how many of these exercise aircraft were airborne, where were they. and what was the actual scenario they were involved in ...at 9:00 AM ET that morning?

[skyeagle409]

For example, why do you suppose 2 aircraft at BOS that morning were using the UA175 callsign?

There were no two aircraft using the same call sign of United 175 taking off from Boston, because ATC would never allow two B-767s from the same airline with the same callsign to takeoff from the same airport within minutes of one another. That shows your lack of knowledge on aviation matters.

[skyeagle409]

Ah, but we COULD imagine it. Indeed, such a scenario was being played out that morning by way of Vigilant Guardian.

What is that suppose to mean? We have been conducting such exercises long before the 9/11 attacks.

[mrbusdriver]

What is that suppose to mean? We have been conducting such exercises long before the 9/11 attacks.

In addition, the term "Command Post Exercise" is key. This tells us that much of the exercise is scripted inputs to initiate decisions/actions at wing/command levels. Much of it is just paperwork, decisionmaking, and communications...minimal live flying. Certainly no targets turning off radios and transponders, then vigorously deviating from their flightplan.

I only wish there had been some major live flying exercise activity that morning...in a ramped up scenario, they may well have had more hot fighters on alert, potentially forward deployed to other locations...

[Babe Ruth]

Really? So, how many of these exercise aircraft were airborne, where were they. and what was the actual scenario they were involved in ...at 9:00 AM ET that morning?

I don't know the answer to that sir, because I was then and am now a civilian. I was not involved in the planning or execution of Vigilant Guardian.

If you are curious about that, perhaps you should read Ruppert's book too. Some of the particulars are covered in that book.

You may want to consult a site visited by Cz here, called History Commons. It too is very informative and may answer your questions.

Sky

At least one investigator that has spent alot of time going over transcripts discovered that there were 2 calls to ground control at BOS using the UA 175 callsign, I think about 15 minutes apart.

That you are unaware of that fact is no surprise, but it doesn't change the fact. Did you know that there was confusion about the actual gate assignment for AA11? That was in the Boston paper the next morning or so.

[skyeagle409]

Sky

At least one investigator that has spent alot of time going over transcripts discovered that there were 2 calls to ground control at BOS using the UA 175 callsign, I think about 15 minutes apart.

Apparently, he was confused.

Transcript of United 175

8:13:32 -- UAL175: Cleared for takeoff runway niner uniteds one seventy five heavy.

8:13:34 -- Local Control East: United one seventy-five heavy contact departure.

8:14:36 -- UAL: Departure Uniteds one seventy-five heavy.

8:14:44 -- UAL175: Approach, United one seventy-five heavy with you out of twelve hundred.

8:14:46 -- Boston Departure Radar: United one seventy-five heavy, Boston departure radar contact. Climb and maintain one four thousand.

8:14:51 -- UAL175: One four thousand, United one seventy-five heavy.

8:15:41 -- Boston Departure Radar: United one seventy-five, heavy turn right heading, two one zero.

8:15:45 -- UAL175: Turn two one zero, United one seventy-five heavy.

8:16:51 -- Boston Departure Radar: United one seventy-five, heavy turn right, heading two seven zero.

8:16:54 -- UAL175: Turn to two seven zero, United one seventy-five.

8:17:09 -- Boston Departure Radar: United one seventy-five heavy, contact Boston approach. One two seven point two good day.

8:17:13 -- UAL175: Two seven point two, United one seventy-five heavy. Good day.

8:17:21 -- UAL175: Boston, good morning. United one seventy-five heavy out of eight thousand.

8:17:24 -- Boston Approach: United one seventy-five heavy, Boston approach. Fly heading two seven zero.

8:17:28 -- UAL175: Two seven zero on the heading, United one seventy-five.

8:19:09 -- Boston Approach: United one seventy-five heavy, contact Boston center one three three point four two.

8:19:13 -- UAL175: Three three four two, United one seventy-five heavy. Good day.

http://www.nytimes.c...T-FLIGHT11.html

Nothing there about United 175 taking off from Boston at 8:23 AM.

That you are unaware of that fact is no surprise, but it doesn't change the fact. Did you know that there was confusion about the actual gate assignment for AA11?

All they had to do was to check gate records.

Edited August 12, 2012 by skyeagle409