Something Strange About Flight 93, Passengers and other pre-flight errata Options

[Obwon]

From:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/...passengers.html

Something Strange
about Flight 93

Were any of the passengers supposed to be on the flight?

Original URL: http://team8plus.org/e107_plugins/content/...t.php?content.8

23 (and counting) of the 44 people on Flight 93 were not supposed to be on the flight that day. Is this really just a coincidence?

By FrankL August 2002, (reviewed 2005 thanks to Brad)

Before beginning, I would like to express my deepest sympathy for anyone who lost loved ones on Sept 11th. Writing this piece has been particularly disturbing as it involved the reading the fine details of stories told by relatives of the people on the planes.

Too Much Bad Luck?

Many people have asked questions about the small number of passengers on each of the hijacked planes on Sept 11th, each flight was on average a quarter full. Flight 93 in particular had a very small load on board, only forty four people in total, including four suspected hijackers. Thirty seven passengers (excluding crew) on a plane that holds around two hundred people would make you wonder how an airline could possibly make a profit on such a flight. The mainstream press have speculated that this was careful planning by the hijackers, booking into flights that were already under booked so as to reduce the likelihood of confrontation with other passengers.

Someone pointed out to me the large number of people who were only on the flights 'by chance'. There are numerous stories about people who originally planned to take another flight but decided to take the opportunity to get home early and so on. I originally dismissed this as being coincidence since there didn't appear to be enough of them to be significant.

However, on further examination of the stories of the flight 93 passengers I found something quite startling. The following table details all the passengers and crew that were on this flight by chance - mostly moving from other flights. There are some, like Alan Beaven who were reluctantly called out to last minute meetings.

1. Christine Snyder.

Snyder wanted to build up frequent flier miles on her United account. That morning, she 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. http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/2001...mainstoryp7.asp

2. Deora Bodley

She was supposed to take United Flight 91, but decided the night before to take one an hour earlier
so she could get home sooner to her family and boyfriend http://www.thereview.com/Site%20Archive/Si...0922apwire.html

3. Donald Peterson.

They weren't supposed to be on United Flight 93, but they got to the Newark airport early, and their original flight was late and crowded. http://www.hazlitt.org/united/whotheywere2.html

4. Jean Peterson

5. Jeremy Glick.

Jeremy Glick was supposed to have been on Flight 93 a day earlier, but missed the Monday flight after getting stuck in traffic on his way to Newark Airport. http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp

6. Lauren Grandcolas

Originally scheduled on a later flight, she had been pleasantly surprised to easily get a standby seat on Flight 93 at the airport. http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp

7. Louis Nacke.

Some of the passengers had never planned to be on the flight. Nacke had booked his seat only the night before. Out to dinner with his family, he had a received a phone call from one of his customers who needed help with an inventory problem. http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp

8. Mark Bingham.

Mark Bingham, 31, was also supposed to have flown to San Francisco last Monday. But he hadn't recovered sufficiently from the 30th birthday celebration of his roommate in Manhattan,
so he decided to wait until Tuesday morning. He overslept a 6 a.m. alarm and just made his flight http://www.the-review.com/Site%20Archive/S...0922apwire.html

9. Alan Beavan.

Alan Beaven of Oakland, bCalif., was on Flight 93 reluctantly. He was staying with his wife and young daughter at an ashram in New York, preparing to begin a year volunteering as head lawyer for the Syda Foundation in Bombay. Yet, the environmental attorney had unfinished business one
last Clean Water Act lawsuit for his firm before his trip overseas. When settlement talks broke down last Monday, Beaven was duty-bound to fly back to San Francisco to handle
the case. http://www.the-review.com/Site%20Archive/S...0922apwire.html

10. Nicole Miller.

Nicole Miller's flight last Monday had also been cancelled. The 21-year-old college student and waitress at a Chili's in San Jose had gone back East at the urging of her boyfriend, who wanted her with him when he visited his family. Because she had agreed to go at the last minute, Miller and her boyfriend had to make return reservations on different flights. http://www.thereview.com/Site%20Archive/Si...0922apwire.html

11. Thomas Burnett.

Like Bodley, Thomas Burnett was leaving New Jersey early to be with his family. The 38-year-old San Ramon, Calif., resident was supposed to have flown out that afternoon on Delta, but switched to Flight 93 to get home to his wife, Deena, and their three daughters. http://www.thereview.com/Site%20Archive/Si...0922apwire.html

D. Keith Grossman, president of Thoratec Corp., of Pleasanton, Calif., was
in Cleveland to meet Deitrick and ask what his company could do to help. Grossman said he could
do no less. One victim on the flight was his employee and close friend, Tom Burnett. "We were both in New York that day," Grossman said. "He was supposed to go home on Flight 91 later in the day, but he switched it to get on Flight 93." http://clevessf.dev.advance.net/911/more/1...5560150570.html

12. Jason Dahl
(Pilot).

Dahl was planning to take his wife Sandy to London for their fifth wedding anniversary Sept. 14, and by moving up his flight schedule, they would have more time together overseas. Sandy, a United flight attendant, went onto United's computer system and shifted him to Flight 93. http://flight93.org/post-gazette-10-28.html

13. Wanda Green.

Wanda Green wasn't originally supposed to be on Flight 93. The 49-year-old divorced mother of two grown children had been scheduled to fly Sept. 13, but Green, who also worked as a real estate agent, realized she had to handle the closing of a home sale Sept. She'd phoned her best friend, fellow flight attendant Donita Judge, who opened United's computerized schedule and shifted Green to the Sept. 11 flight. http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/2001...mainstoryp7.asp

14. Deborah Welsh.

Welsh, who had been a flight attendant for more than 25 years, usually avoided early-morning flights, but she had agreed to trade shifts with another worker. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...7_heroes02.html

15. Honor Elizabeth Wainio.

Since she was scheduled on a flight that stopped in Denver, Colorado, she changed her reservations to a direct flight into San Francisco at the last minute. Wainio was able to borrow a phone from a fellow passenger and contact her stepmother during the attack. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_Elizabeth_Wainio

16. Georgine Rose Corrigan

She was returning from a series of business and personal trips. She was not scheduled to take flight 93 but decided to leave early to return for a trade show. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgine_Rose_Corrigan

17. Toshiya Kuge.

Toshiya was a second-year student in the science and engineering school at Waseda University, in Suginami Ward, Tokyo. According to relatives, he left Japanon August 29 and had planned to return Wednesday, September 12, 2001 http://www.unitedheroes.com/Toshiya-Kuge.html

18. Patricia Cushing.

Mr. Hasenei said the family printed out maps to help Mrs. Cushing get around San Francisco. She had planned to return to her home in Bayonnenext week. baltimore sun

19. Jane Folger.

She was travelling with Patricia Cushin. http://www.unitedheroes.com/Patricia-Cushi...ane-Folger.html

20. LORRAINE BAY

A 37-year United veteran, she had chosen Flight 93 over another flight because it was nonstop
http://www.unitedafa.org/res/o/911/memoria...orraine_bay.htm

21. SANDY BRADSHAW

Married US Airways pilot Phil Bradshaw cut her flights to the bare minimum -- two two-day trips a
month from Newark to San Francisco or to Los Angeles. She was in economy because she'd picked up Flight 93 late in the planning. Ordinarily, she liked working first class. It was a good fit with her gregarious ways. http://www.werismyki.com/articles/one_destiny.html

22. TODD BEAMER

They returned home on Monday, Sept. 10, at 5 p.m. While Beamer could have left that night for a Tuesday business meeting in California, he wanted to spend time with his sons and his wife, who is due
in January with their third child. www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93beamerbiop8.asp

23. LEROY HOMER,

It's been a year since that day I saw your name scroll on the TV, listed as one of the victims of the terrorist hijackings. I couldn't believe my eyes, I felt a hole open in my soul, I couldn't fathom that
you were gone from this Earth. I remember I had told Jackie that the chances of you flying that day were slim, and that you'd be OK. I was wrong. http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0902/homer.html

24. Edward Porter Felt

He was on a last minute business trip to San Francisco for BEA Systems. Another employee of BEA Systems, Kenneth W. Basnicki was visiting the World Trade Center for a conference and died in the attack.

There are numerous stories like this for passengers on the other flights - including Barbara Olson, wife of US Solicitor General Theodore Olson, but it appears to be Flight 93 which has the most significant number.

This could still be nothing more than a series of coincidences, but on further investigation, there appears to be more to this story than is being revealed by the press.

What Happened to Flight 91?

Several of the people mentioned above were originally supposed to be on another flight - Flight 91, scheduled for 9 a.m. According to the stories above, they arrived early at the airport and got standby tickets on Flight 93 - although flight 93 was delayed and didn't take off until around 8:42 anyway.

Looking for more details on Flight 91 I found the following site:
http://rsjames.com/newsletters/2001/14-10-26-2001-13-14.txt

Here is the significant portion:

You had posted a few e-mails last month about flight 91 and 93. I have a friend who was the pilot of flight 91. The reason they changed flights was, when the flight crew boarded and started to prepare for
flight, my friend had noticed a crack in the windshield, so they grounded the plane.

They took the passengers and put them on flight 93, but not the crew members, that flight crew was saved.

This means that a number of people (possibly all the passengers on board) were removed from Flight 91 and put on Flight 93. If this is the case - just how many people were actually booked onto Flight 93 in the first place? Was it an exclusive flight just for the hijackers? Why was it this flight in particular that had so many phone calls?

Another significant point about Ziad Jarrah - supposed pilot of Flight 93. Nowhere on the Internet does it mention Jarrah booking or purchasing a ticket on Flight 93. On the indictment against Moussaoui it mentions most of the other hijackers purchasing their tickets but not Jarrah.

Was Ziad Jarrah actually booked onto Flight 91 and moved onto Flight 93. Is this why the phone calls mentioned only three hijackers?

If anyone has an explanation for this - conventional or otherwise, or any further information - please email me at -email-

There are a other pieces of weirdness about this flight:

Mark Bingham phoned his mother and said, "Hi Mom, This is Mark Bingham"

I don't care how stressed you are - you never phone your mother and give her your full name

See also: Flight 93: Index of What Really Happened

What Really Happened

[Obwon]

So, we learn that flight 93 became a replacement flight for flight 91 that had a cracked windshield, and flt 91's passengers were shifted to flight 93, scheduled to leave an hour earlier than flt 91.

Yet the media says the skyjackers "carefully planned" to take this flight?!? To reduce the possibility of meddling passengers?

I note, upon reading at some of the links that are working [in the above missive] that the skyjackers were also switched to flight 93 from flight 91. So much so for "careful planning".

But, since flight 93, appears to have had passengers, who were booked on it alone. It appears that this flight was also available for bookings, at the same time flight 91 was available, and before the cracked windshield was discovered on flt 91, scheduled to leave one hour later. Which means there were two under booked flights slotted in the same low use time slot. Why would this be?

Now, I'm no professional here, but I get the general impression that; with only 43 passengers available for this time slot, there are two planes waiting for passengers to book on them.
That's some 400 seats being sold with only 43 takers, and the reservations system has
them splitting between the two planes, until the cracked windshield is discovered.
Then they move everyone to the earlier flight? Shouldn't they have moved the earlier flight to
the later slot? To accommodate the passengers booked on the later flight who hadn't yet checked in?

Anyway, maybe some of the pros here should have a go at this point in the processes.

Obwon

[Obwon]

Okay, I got it wrong about which flight the skyjackers booked on, we don't know!

But now there's this:

http://911review.org/brad.com/FLIGHT93_91.html

Suggesting that flt 91 was not canceled because of a cracked windshield, but because
the airport was closed due to the 9-11 attacks.

If so, then we need another excuse for passengers being moved from flt 91 to flt 93.

Very strange indeed.

Obwon

[tumetuestumefais...]

Yeah, indeed it is strange.

The flight UA93 was originally a flight from Orlando, FL to Los Angeles, then on 6/7 it was rescheduled to flight from Philadelphia to San Francisco, then on 9/5 it was eventually again reassigned to flight from Newark to San Francisco.
see here my BTS flights compilation

N591UA - the "UA93" plane - left Chicago as the UA642 flight to Newark on 9/10 according to BTS, but was diverted we don't know where. It again was back in Newark and took off from there for a flight 75 to San Francisco 7,5 hours late. Yet in San Francisco then it departed gate for flight back to Newark at 23:00 just 45 minutes after it arrived there from the previous flight 75 from Newark - the arrival time in the BTS for flight UA75 from Newark to San Francisco is 22:15. Then somehow managed to debark and embark the passengers in the 45 minutes span and left back to Newark as a flight UA78, where it arrived a 7:01 on 9/11 - like more than half an hour late. Then it according to BTS took off (wheels off) as the flight UA93 at 8:28, not at 8:42 as is the official account (I don't know what is more official if the BTS or the riged commission conclusions... ...there indeed is a plane - in the 84Rades radar data - taking off Newark at 8:28 M3 2602 squawking later military code M2 5124 and changing M3 to 2633 and disappearing from the radar at 14:02 UTC 32° 6'19.69"N 81°40'5.10"W -in Georgia very near from Fort Stewart airbase)
see here my BTS 911 planes compilation.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Mar 10 2011, 12:24 PM

[dMz]

How's this for "strange-" the alleged "FAA data" distributed by the Farmer/911files/BCR/spcengineer (who appears to have a 0% warning level here now that I am again able to access the staff functions of the forum software- so all his online lamentations of being "banned" here at P4T looks like yet more 'smoke' being blown by the Farmer FWIW ) before he 'nuked' his blogs/forums/websites lists a commercial Boeing 757-200 "UAL93" landing at DCA at 10:28 on Sep 11 2001.

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/5086/ua93dcarn8.jpg

I didn't find my original 'discovery' post here, but see post #1 of this thread for one referenced to it, and my post should be somewhere here in the UA93 sub-forum though:

Aircraft, DCA, FAA, IAD, RADES, and WTF?!?!, Discrepancies found in radar sets and arrival logs
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15808

I'm still looking in my archives for the source spreadsheet file that contained that "DCA Arrivals" worksheet, but I may need to go look in my storage through my CD/DVD backups of my earlier 9/11 research (which should include many of the Farmer's files that he was distributing back in 2008-2009).

[rob balsamo]

How's this for "strange-" the alleged "FAA data" distributed by the Farmer/911files/BCR/spcengineer (who appears to have a 0% warning level here now that I am again able to access the staff functions of the forum software- so all his online lamentations of being "banned" here at P4T looks like yet more 'smoke' being blown by the Farmer FWIW )

Both Farmer and his sidekick Keith "Beachnut/jackcahill" Beachy are able to post here. They just havent either figurd it out yet, or they are so used to their complusive lying, they just continue to lie because they cannot debate the facts.

Despite their numerous attempts at libel across the net due to their obsession with our work, we'll still let them post here under the Troll category. It's always fun to have a toy to bat around every now and then.

Farmer also registered another sock here as well... he calls himself the "dog" with an email address of "mafiadog".

What a tool..

[tumetuestumefais...]

before he 'nuked' his blogs/forums/websites lists a commercial Boeing 757-200 "UAL93" landing at DCA at 10:28 on Sep 11 2001.

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/5086/ua93dcarn8.jpg

In the 84Rades I don't see any plane land at DCA 10:28, there is just M3 5166 (looks like helicopter?) landing like ~10:30 and M3 5175 M2 2114 which looks originating at Quantico, landing like ~10:31

[Obwon]

Yeah, indeed it is strange.

The flight UA93 was originally a flight from Orlando, FL to Los Angeles, then on 6/7 it was rescheduled to flight from Philadelphia to San Francisco, then on 9/5 it was eventually again reassigned to flight from Newark to San Francisco.
see here my BTS flights compilation

N591UA - the "UA93" plane - left Chicago as the UA642 flight to Newark on 9/10 according to BTS, but was diverted we don't know where. It again was back in Newark and took off from there for a flight 75 to San Francisco 7,5 hours late. Yet in San Francisco then it departed gate for flight back to Newark at 23:00 just 45 minutes after it arrived there from the previous flight 75 from Newark - the arrival time in the BTS for flight UA75 from Newark to San Francisco is 22:15. Then somehow managed to debark and embark the passengers in the 45 minutes span and left back to Newark as a flight UA78, where it arrived a 7:01 on 9/11 - like more than half an hour late. Then it according to BTS took off (wheels off) as the flight UA93 at 8:28, not at 8:42 as is the official account (I don't know what is more official if the BTS or the riged commission conclusions... ...there indeed is a plane - in the 84Rades radar data - taking off Newark at 8:28 M3 2602 squawking later military code M2 5124 and changing M3 to 2633 and disappearing from the radar at 14:02 UTC 32° 6'19.69"N 81°40'5.10"W -in Georgia very near from Fort Stewart airbase)
see here my BTS 911 planes compilation.

Hmmm... Thanks for the info, looks pretty good to me.

I expected to see more questionable movements of this plane, and I expect to see even more.

The story goes on that: FLT 93 landed in Cleveland with 200 passengers on board.
I'll pull that story later and post it, if someone doesn't do it first.

If that is true, then the additional passengers, most likely are from the Boston planes. Which would mean they need some way to get from Boston to Newark, without being "seen".
We are seeing that flight no's, and tail no's, and missing data are being used to conceal things that are happening. Also to make it appear that things are happening that are not happening.
I've even read that the data shows some planes in two places at the same time.

I wonder what the likelihood is that a non-stop transcontinental flight could really turn around in 45 minutes? Surely there's much to do to turn a plane around? Most especially if there are passengers to off load and re-load, food, fuel, cleaning? Restocking? Crew breaks, replacement? Maintenance? Other issues a lay person wouldn't know about? Administrative?
Is it possible this leg was never actually flown?

Time is the perps enemy here, they've got to get things positioned properly, before the no-fly order comes down. Guess we need to look-see if anything came to Newark from Boston.
If not, and I expect it wouldn't be made that easy, then look for something quirky that can't be easily explained to have occurred, along that route. Off hand flight 91 needs to be looked at more carefully I'd think.

Then there's the question of why so few of the relatives of the 4 flights, came forward to claim compensation? Some are suggesting that many of these passengers were faked somehow. But that doesn't seem to wash with 200 of them somehow appearing in Cleveland.

Happy hunting.

Obwon

[Obwon]

United Airlines identified one of the aircraft as it's own flight 93.
That much is clear. Anyway, enjoy the read, they're nicely laid out sites.
The grammar leaves a bit to be desired, but hey, "We takes whats wheeze
can gets!" lol

Timeline for United Airlines Flight 93
Controllers Struggle with Decision to Shoot Down Plane

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1962910

The Official Truth in Three Versions
http://www.public-action.com/911/4flights.html

batcave 9-11 911review <---try this one first
http://911review.org/inn.globalfreepress/C...rt_Mystery.html

Clearly there's something amiss!
Obwon

[tumetuestumefais...]

The story goes on that: FLT 93 landed in Cleveland with 200 passengers on board.
I'll pull that story later and post it, if someone doesn't do it first.

Is it the story about the Delta 1989 plane they talk in LC2E about? (and also about the other plane at CLE if I remember it well..)
Anyway there are some very suspicious planes moving very suspiciously around our FDR "UA93" (the one which took off EWR at 8:42), two of which (M3 7441 originating at DTW and M3 6603 originating most probably at Wright-Patterson AFB) later most probably booth land at CLE at around ~10:08.

the red is our "8:42 UA93"

[Obwon]

Is it the story about the Delta 1989 plane they talk in LC2E about? (and also about the other plane at CLE if I remember it well..)
Anyway there are some very suspicious planes moving very suspiciously around our FDR "UA93" (the one which took off EWR at 8:42), two of which (M3 7441 originating at DTW and M3 6603 originating most probably at Wright-Patterson AFB) later most probably booth land at CLE at around ~10:08.

the red is our "8:42 UA93"

Yep, those are the ones. There's a plane 'x' at Cleveland with 200 passengers on board being
off loaded at the NASA center. It's UA that calls it flight 93, we are told. Because we can't find any wreckage for this aircraft, no bodies, and surprise, no family claims to the compensation fund for this plane, it's likely that it did not crash. At least there are no skyjackers listed as being on board the flight, so it would have to have been the flight crew, in control of the plane.
If that is so, then it very likely did land in CLE, because the ground stop was ordered, shortly after it left NWK. That would make the cell calls from this plane, come in after it had landed at CLE and before the passengers deplaned.

So the suspicious gets even more suspicious, as an "alternative" line of events becomes even more plausible, because there are 9 skyjackers found alive and one dead a year before 9-11. As in: not enough skyjackers to go around. So this would be an answer to the question: "Where did the passengers go?"

Obwon

[Obwon]

Yep, those are the ones. There's a plane 'x' at Cleveland with 200 passengers on board being
off loaded at the NASA center. It's UA that calls it flight 93, we are told. Because we can't find any wreckage for this aircraft, no bodies, and surprise, no family claims to the compensation fund for this plane, it's likely that it did not crash. At least there are no skyjackers listed as being on board the flight, so it would have to have been the flight crew, in control of the plane.
If that is so, then it very likely did land in CLE, because the ground stop was ordered, shortly after it left NWK. That would make the cell calls from this plane, come in after it had landed at CLE and before the passengers deplaned.

So the suspicious gets even more suspicious, as an "alternative" line of events becomes even more plausible, because there are 9 skyjackers found alive and one dead a year before 9-11. As in: not enough skyjackers to go around. So this would be an answer to the question: "Where did the passengers go?"

Obwon

Here:

---begin clip----

No Flight 93 Passengers on 9/11 Compensation List; UA 9/11 Planes Still Flying, page 1

http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread432537/pg1

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 35 times

Topic started on 30-1-2009 @ 02:34 AM by GoldenFleece
Just when I thought I'd heard most of the hundreds of anomalies about 9/11 (maybe it's THOUSANDS of anomalies!)

Flight 93: of the 45 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 6
are listed in the Social Security Death Index (13%.)

Of these 45 people, NONE are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list:

No one.

Something is odd with the serial numbers of Flight 93 and Flight 175. The serial numbers of the ORIGINAL planes are SAME serial numbers of the planes that ARE STILL FLYING: 591UA and 612UA.

Dulce argues, that even though N-number can be transferred, the manufacturer serial number CANNOT be transferred.

According to some spot-witnesses, Boeing 757-222 SERIAL NUMBER 28142 is flying around Chicago under the alias 594UA.

According to the FAA, N594UA Boeing 757-222 flies now with a DIFFERENT serial number, namely 28145.

Something is fishy.

www.rense.com...

"Fishy" isn't the right word. More like "greatest criminal deception in U.S. history."
----end clip----------

Obwon

[tumetuestumefais...]

Something is odd with the serial numbers of Flight 93 and Flight 175. The serial numbers of the ORIGINAL planes are SAME serial numbers of the planes that ARE STILL FLYING: 591UA and 612UA.

Dulce argues, that even though N-number can be transferred, the manufacturer serial number CANNOT be transferred.

According to some spot-witnesses, Boeing 757-222 SERIAL NUMBER 28142 is flying around Chicago under the alias 594UA.

According to the FAA, N594UA Boeing 757-222 flies now with a DIFFERENT serial number, namely 28145.

Something is fishy.

This is very interesting, you've some links to substantial sources which show this things?

[Obwon]

This is very interesting, you've some links to substantial sources which show this things?

The link in the clipping I posted above is all I have so far.
I posted it to see if anyone else has found anything pro or con on it, since
I know I could probably find more, but I think it'd take someone with more knowledge to
ascertain the veracity of it. Also, I don't have the time I used to, to go digging very deeply.

Obwon

[Obwon]

The link in the clipping I posted above is all I have so far.
I posted it to see if anyone else has found anything pro or con on it, since
I know I could probably find more, but I think it'd take someone with more knowledge to
ascertain the veracity of it. Also, I don't have the time I used to, to go digging very deeply.

Obwon

Here's a little more I've found, nothing useful yet, but there are many sites citing
this rumor, I see none of them citing a source for the continued existence of these aircraft.
Of course, none of them are claiming to be the originators of the claim either. So someone must have a source. Have to keep looking, unless someone already knows of it.

From:

http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-b757-28142.htm


General information & flightlog

Serial number 28145 LN:727
Type 757-222
First flight date 26/08/1996
Test registration
Plane age 14.5 years

Flights recorded
UA980 IAD->BOS 14/12/05
UA1059 DEN->RNO 11/02/00
UA111 ORD->MCO 29/09/98
See details - Add a flight


General information & flightlog

Serial number 28142 LN:718
Type 757-222
First flight date 17/06/1996
Test registration
Plane age 14.7 years

Flights recorded
UA93 EWR->SFO 11/09/01
UA1421 SEA->ANC 26/07/96
See details - Add a flight

------------------------------
Good picture of the shanksville crash hole:

http://candidblogger.blogspot.com/2009/02/...-to-flight.html

[amazed!]

Wow!!! Fascinating information!

Cee Cee Lyles was supposedly a FA on that flight, and she was from my home town, supposedly.

Did you find any information on her Obwon?

[Obwon]

Wow!!! Fascinating information!

Cee Cee Lyles was supposedly a FA on that flight, and she was from my home town, supposedly.

Did you find any information on her Obwon?

I just listened to her taped call. Off hand it sounds edited. She says:
"Hi baby... I'm -- baby." Sounds like a reflex to me.
When people are calling someone, and they aren't really sure they will
be identified, they tend to give their own name. So, at first blush, it sounded
to me like she meant to say "Hi baby... I'm Ceecee baby!" But, either she cut herself
short, or more likely (that bit of static) the tape was cut. But that's not evidence, it's just the feeling I got from the flow of the tape.

F93 Attendent CeeCee Lyles Leaves a Message For Her Husband

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUrxsrTKHN4...player_embedded

We obtain the right to speculate from the lack of full disclosure and failure to verify by the authorities. They withhold evidence they fail to close doors.

Obwon

[Obwon]

What's this? Looks like her call went through?


http://www.unitedheroes.com/CeeCee-Ross-Lyles.html

CeeCee Ross-Lyles
34 years old
Fort Myers, FL

Mrs. Lyles was one of the flight attendants on board United 93. Before working as a flight attendant, she was a police officer for six years. She resigned because the airline industry offered more perks and less stress.

Mrs. Lyles husband, Lorne, a police officer, received a phone call that morning. She was surprisingly calm, he said, considering the screaming he heard in the background.

"Just hearing my wife saying she loved us through all that chaos on that plane is just embedded in my heart forever," he said.

Mrs. Lyles' son Jerome Smith is 16 years old. "Everything that happened, the tragedy, was for a cause," he said.

For the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's biography of Cee Cee Lyles, click here.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/2001...3lylesbiop8.asp

Next heroes: Donald and Jean Peterson

http://www.unitedheroes.com/Donald-Jean-Peterson.html

----
Obwon

[Obwon]

Now here's a really interesting read:

http://911search.bravehost.com/twintails591UA.html

Excerpts:
------------------
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)
------------------
------------------
The journey: [flt 91]

1)
Wheels-on Time: 09/01/2001 N594UA NONE
Wheels-on Time: 09/02 -09/05 N594UA NONE
Wheels-on Time: 09/06 N594UA as Flight 0088 from LAX 6:04
Wheels-on-Time: 09/07 -09/11 N594UA NONE

2)
Left Newark on 09/07/2001 to San Francisco
Scheduled Departure Time: UA 09/07/2001 0081 N594UA SFO 07:00 AM EST
Wheels-off Time: UA 09/07/2001 0081 N594UA SFO 07:23 AM EST


3)
Arrived in SF on 09/07:
Scheduled Arrival Time: UA 09/07/2001 0081 N594UA EWR 10:10
Wheels-on Time: UA 09/07/2001 0081 N594UA EWR 9:46
Scheduled Departure Time: UA 09/07/2001 0186 N594UA IAD 11:00
Wheels-off Time: UA 09/07/2001 0186 N594UA IAD/Dulles 11:10

4)
arrived in DC Dulles on 09/07:
Scheduled Arrival Time UA 09/07/2001 0186 N594UA SFO 19:02
Scheduled Departure Time: UA 09/07/2001 0225 N594UA SFO 20:00
Wheels-off Time: UA 09/07/2001 0225 N594UA SFO 20:44


5)
arrived in SF again on 09/07:
Wheels-on Time in SF: UA 09/07/2001 0225 N594UA from IAD/Dulles 23:11
(no wheels-off on that day after this time)

Skipping to September 9th, we find it in Denver:

Wheels-off Time: UA 09/10/2001 1179 N594UA DEN/Denver 15:56

6)
arrived in Denver on 09/10
Scheduled Arrival Time: UA 09/10/2001 1179 N594UA IAD 17:15
Wheels on Time: UA 09/10/2001 1179 N594UA IAD 17:07
Scheduled Departure Time: UA 09/10/2001 1197 N594UA SEA 17:55
Wheels-off time: UA 09/10/2001 1197 N594UA SEA 18:10

7)
arrived in Seattle on 09/10
Scheduled Arrival Time: UA 09/10/2001 1197 N594UA DEN 19:35
Wheels-on Time: UA 09/10/2001 1197 N594UA DEN 19:25
Scheduled Departure Time: UA 09/10/2001 N594UA NONE
Wheels-off time: UA 09/10/2001 N594UA NONE
Scheduled Departure Time: UA 09/11 -09/12 N594UA NONE

Why was "flight91" aka N594UA cancelled?

United Airlines was contacted on this matter and didn't respond yet.
------------------
------------------

Obwon: But we discover it wasn't canceled! It was sitting on the runway waiting to take off, when the "ground stop" order came down and/or the airport was closed!

Seems the story about flt 91 being canceled was to explain passengers being
transferred from it to flt 93. Question: If you arrive at the airport early, do they
really offer you standby on a flight that is supposed to have left but is merely delayed?
It hasn't gotten very far when the airport was closed, shouldn't it have been ordered
to return to NWK, instead of going on?

[Obwon]

Is it the story about the Delta 1989 plane they talk in LC2E about? (and also about the other plane at CLE if I remember it well..)
Anyway there are some very suspicious planes moving very suspiciously around our FDR "UA93" (the one which took off EWR at 8:42), two of which (M3 7441 originating at DTW and M3 6603 originating most probably at Wright-Patterson AFB) later most probably booth land at CLE at around ~10:08.

the red is our "8:42 UA93"

Here's the best site I've found yet, lots of media stories to back it up.
If the links don't work, grab the title and go to google, then click cache for
the story. That usually finds the archived original.

911 : The Cleveland Airport Mystery
http://911search.bravehost.com/ClevelandAirportMystery.html