The FAA Civil Aviation Registry Database myth put to rest (finally).

[MercutioATC]

There have been claims that the FAA Civil Aviation Registry Database's listing of the planes that allegedly crashed on 9/11 is proof of their continued existance.

In answer to this claim, I have repeatedly posted the fact that the FAA does not automatically remove planes from the database. The registration holder must contact the FAA and have the registration removed.

I've been challenged to prove it.

Well, here's a way that everybody can get the information straight from the FAA:

1-866-762-9434 (toll-free)

I just called and was told that the FAA must recieve notification from the registration holder before it removes a registration from the database. The FAA does not do it on their own.

Don't believe me? Call 'em.

[Parche]

1. plane registrastions

You talking about the United and American planes
Like Ex: N334AA

[MercutioATC]

2. Yes.

The claim has been made that they're still flying, the proof being their continued listing in the FAA database.

:crazy:

[RH]

3. The supposition of a claim is criminally illegitimate anyway.

bts publish a disclaimer that is in no way ambiguous:

"Unauthorized attempts to modify any information stored on this system, to defeat or circumvent security features, or to utilize this system for other than its intended purposes are prohibited and may result in criminal prosecution."

"BTS makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this website and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in the contents of this website. No warranty of any kind, implied, expressed or statutory, including but not limited to the warranties of non-infringement of third party rights, title, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose....."

http://www.bts.gov/disclaimer.html

[MercutioATC]

5. Yeah, I believe I mentioned that, too.

It didn't seem to dissuade some people.

[DulceDecorum]

8. What the heck does that mean?

"The supposition of a claim is criminally illegitimate anyway."

Spit it out RH,
before you yourself choke on it.

[RH]

9. It means that

you have no right to invoke the bts database as evidence of anything for any purpose for which the database was not intended.

If you therefore deliberately elect to do so, to promote the said database as something that it is clearly not intended to be, even after the discliamer is pointed out to you, your culpability in the matter is therefore proved, prima facie.

What other possible interpretation would there be?

Their disclaimer is not at all ambiguous.

[DulceDecorum]

14. Oooh I an so scared

:scared: :scared:

what do you intend to do about it?

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RH]

194. I shal ciontinue to highlight

flagrant hypcrisy.

You are the one who goes on about rules and regulations.

What other possible interpretation would there be?

[DulceDecorum]

49. You have no right to invoke the bts database as evidence

Yeah,
especially when it keeps ratting you out.

Go check out WHO started the BTS and WHY.

[MercutioATC]

50. Yes, but it doesn't mean what you insist it means...

and a simple phone call could clear that up for you.

[tngledwebb]

39. As a favor to the RH-Speak impaired...

Absence of airplanes on a database is not airplanes of absence on a database. And now we return to those pesky known unknowns...

[LARED]

4. It's a good day to try on some hats

Big surprise. When you're a paid PR shill you have unlimited funding to pay off people so they will say anything.

LARED LINKMAN

The FAA flacks are government employees. You expect me to believe anything they say. Get real.

LAREDDEWD.

:evilgrin:

[MercutioATC]

6. Yeah, the woman I spoke to DOES work for "Bushco's" government.

She was probably lying to me...

:tinfoilhat:

[DulceDecorum]

11. If she really worked for Bush

she would have DENIED that
the plane in question STILL maintains a VALID REGISTRATION
on the FAA database.

MercutioATC,
here is a link to United Airlines.
http://www.hoovers.com/ual/--ID__11520--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml
Call them up and ask them WHY they have REFUSED
despite the penalty of law,
to return the Triennial Reports for N591UA and N612UA to the FAA.
Remind them of their legal obligations
and then ask them
what the bloody hell those two planes are still doing in US airspace.

[MercutioATC]

16. Again, let's stick to the issue at hand. One thing at a time.

Let's deal with your mistaken notion that an active listing in the database is proof of the continued existance of an aircraft first. THEN we can deal with specific airplanes.

[tngledwebb]

35. Are you saying that

you be would be SURPRISED if a BushCo. official lied to you? You mean this ironically? Or do you mean the very idea that BushCo officials might dissemble is real tinfoil-hat stuff? Maybe you are saying that lying to YOU would be impossible, because you are an ATC and have a BS detector more powerful than Pentagon radar?

[MercutioATC]

41. No, I'm saying that I didn't talk to the CIA, I talked to an FAA employee

about a database question. I really don't think she'd lie about a procedure that everybody in the aviation community seems to understand. I didn't ask where Jimmy Hoffa was buried or what was in those hangars at Area 51, I asked how the FAA operates their database.

[tngledwebb]

42. I take your point but

how do you feel re BushCo credibility gap? You trust em' how far up or down? Specific examples of Bush dissembling appreciated.

[MercutioATC]

43. Again, I'm trying to keep this thread on-topic. I'd be happy to answer

you in another thread or a PM, but I really want to deal with DD's claim that the FAA database is proof those planes are still in the air.

:)

[Abe Linkman]

44. Good question. Go ahead, murky: Make our day. n/t

n/t

[MercutioATC]

47. Why not answer MY question (and stick to the topic of the thread)

How do you stand on DD's database claim and have you called the phone number I provided to clarify the issue?

[tngledwebb]

64. As you know, the real subject,

on these threads should be a fairly civil and rational debate and/or analysis of terrible events that need answers yesterday. But some posters aren't helpful. Many, not all, accept the official 'Incredibly Incompetent and Extremely Unlucky US Govt + Incredibly Competent and Extremely Lucky Bin-Laden' Conspiracy Theory while labeling those that don't do so 'Conspiracy Theorists', the way some conservatives use the 'L-word' to stereotype, denigrate and stop further discussion. I'll admit this: I am a Liberal Democrat American, even a 'Conspiracy Theorist' on occasion, (always excepting the craziest ones, IE Single Bullet, UFOs, fake Moon landing, Atlantis, etc.) Who are the rest of you? If you don't match three out of four of my adjectives you MAY be logged on incorrectly.

[Abe Linkman]

67. Well said, tnglewebb...and it needed to be said & bears repeating.

I especially liked the "Incredibly Incompetent v. B-L Conspiracy".

Equally impressive is your ability to slip in truths whereas a more blunt approach might result in "them" being able to cry to momma & cause US to get a whipping.

[MercutioATC]

68. And that has WHAT to do with the FAA's database?

The purpose of THIS thread was an attempt to clarify the issue (something we're all allegedly in favor of).

I attempted to keep it on-topic so we can at least put one controversy to rest. If you'll notice, it's been the people who argue about "lack of proof" the loudest who refuse to make a simple phone call and, instead, continually try to change the subject.

[tngledwebb]

69. Call me paranoid but...

you're asking folks who MAY believe the US govt had something to do with 9/11 to call a Govt office and expect to get reliable information? And/or give personal information to the same Govt? Or, maybe you expect the same Govt that got caught so tragically off-guard on 9/11, but still hasn't stopped terrorists from working inside the homeland, to tell the truth and/or give accurate info to the general public? Have you gone mad?

[MercutioATC]

70. Yeah, I'd say that's a little paranoid.

No personal info necessary...you just call and get the answer.

You don't fear the highways because the government maintains them. You don't refuse to fly because the government inspects and controls the planes. You drink tap water even though the government runs the purification plants.

Why would you be afraid of asking a database question? If you trust the government for so many things every day, why wouldn't you believe the answer to such a simple question?

[tngledwebb]

71. 'Only a little paranoid' then, but incredulous

of ANYTHING this Govt says, esp re any inquiries about PLANES. We have a Catch 22 on this one. How did YOU figure out which part of this Govt we can trust? Have you read Patriot Act I? Have you heard John Ashcroft sing? Have you seen how Wolfy combs his hair?

[Abe Linkman]

72. How did HE figure out which part we can trust? He knows. He knows.

Isn't it obvious? That's why he supports the Official Conspiracy Theory! He's not gonna take ANY chances. < yes, I'm kinda pretty sure that's why he supports the Gov't CT...even though he'll say he has "questions" about some of the details of it. WHICH details does he have questions about? good question. >

[tngledwebb]

73. So it would seem.

And that's..... OKAY. But there are some problems with the O'Theory folks hereabouts. 1. They never give any credible rebuttals, or deal directly with any questions, yet always demand this from the other side. 2. They seem interchangable, letting each other answer someone else's questions, employing similar 'logic' or sarcasm. 3. They must have a LOT of spare time if they choose to waste it on Tin Foil Hatters whose sanity they barely credit. I wouldn't spend MY time arguing with folks who think Bush is the greatest president we ever had, for example, even if half the posters WERE on the other side. Well, if I had a mean and ornery streak, or was being paid to, or...Naaah.

[MercutioATC]

75. I'll deal some of those issues right now...

1) Show me where I've failed to give "credible rebuttals".

2) Who answered the last question you posted to me? Me? No, Abe did.

3) I've explained my reasons for posting here. This database issue is a perfect example. People are disseminating factual errors and presenting them as fact (I'm not talking about differing opinions, I'm talking about misinformation). I've provided an easy way for anybody to confirm the accuracy of my claim...it's just interesting how many people refuse to leave the environs of their safe little theories to learn the truth.

[RH]

76. Here's a creditable rebuttal

that I wasted a lot of time on:

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_.htm

Was it worth the trouble?

[DulceDecorum]

108. No

Not at all.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DulceDecorum]

121. and I assume you are chewing before you swallow

Personally,
I like databases.
I think we should go with the database.

Look what it did for Nick Berg
and his company Prometheus Methods Tower Services Inc.

One quick run
through the Pennsylvania State Department database
demonstrated that
there was no such company
registered under that name.
http://www.dailylocal.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11650247&BRD=1671&PAG=461&dept_id=17782&rfi=6

Another quick look
through the FCC and FAA licensing databases
came up blank.

But not half as blank
as the look on the faces
of the people who never thought
that we would actually go and check the Official Story.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/gregory.php?articleid=2582

[MercutioATC]

148. You like databases? Really?

:eyes:

The problem, again, is that databases contain only records. They don't show how many procedures are handled in real life. I will absolutely agree with you that the FAA database shows active registrations on the United planes. I'll also agree that those registrations are probably still actually active (the database is showing accurate data).

You, however, then insist on taking another step and insisting that the active registration is proof the planes are still flying because United wouldn't break the law. Guess what? If United IS still flying those planes, it's broken laws a whole lot more serious than an FAA paperwork requirement. On what planet does it make sense that United wouldn't break a minor administrative regulation but would instead choose to violate fraud and accessory to murder charges (possibly others) because it didn't want to break the law?

Databases have their place, but we still have the responsibility to make rational conclusions based on the data.

[DulceDecorum]

150. The FBI likes databases too.

A review of public records DATABASES for Alomari has determined that his address is reported as 4032 57th terrace Vero Beach, Florida.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents/fbiaffidavit11.htm

At approximately 11:15PM on September 11, 2001, Alcohol Tobacco and forearms Special Agent Michael R. Saenz spoke with Patricia Venezia the rental manager for Alamo Rent A Car located at the Portland Jetport 1000 Westbrook Street, Portland, Maine. Ms Venezia checked the Alamo DATABASE and advised that on September 9 2001, an individual identifying himself as Mohamed Atta rented a blue Nissan Altima ..... at an Alamo rental office in Boston Massachusetts.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents/fbiaffidavit12.htm

MercutioATC
FINALLY ADMITS
to the information contained within the databases:
I will absolutely agree with you that the FAA database shows active registrations on the United planes. I'll also agree that those registrations are probably still actually active (the database is showing accurate data).

DID YOU ALL SEE THAT?
"I will absolutely agree with you that the FAA database shows active registrations on the United planes. I'll also agree that those registrations are probably still actually active (the database is showing accurate data). "

ACCURATE DATA.
Yup,
MercutioATC agrees that the data on the FAA website is accurate.

BUT --
MercutioATC says:
You, however, then insist on taking another step and insisting that the active registration is proof the planes are still flying because United wouldn't break the law. Guess what? If United IS still flying those planes, it's broken laws a whole lot more serious than an FAA paperwork requirement. On what planet does it make sense that United wouldn't break a minor administrative regulation but would instead choose to violate fraud and accessory to murder charges (possibly others) because it didn't want to break the law?

Murder? What murder?
Do you see any dead bodies lying around?
Where?
Who died?
Was the plane totally destroyed or scrapped?
Is the database wrong?
I thought you just said that the database is showing accurate data.
Was the FAA lady lying to you?
Did United Airlines violate Section 47:41?
When did the plane die?
The hijackers didn't die.
Why would anyone else?
If the planes are still flying,
then how did anyone die?

If the planes are still registered
-- AND THEY ARE --
and United simply has grounded them,
does that make the whole non-reporting thing OK?
Would that absolve them of blame?
If the planes are indeed totally destroyed
and United has not informed the FAA,
what else has United NOT reported?
What the hell are they hiding?

[RH]

156. That's because

the FBI don't have too much else to go on.
The known CVs of the suspects are not at all extensive.

With regard to the destroyed aircraft there were one or two other indicators from which to judge.

There was an autopsy.
There must have been an autopsy database.

How come you don't want to know about that?

Others invoke an autopsy document as if to show (erroneously) that no Arabs were aboard Flight 77, albeit that (presumably) regular passengers were.

Double standard?

Cant wait to see how you get around that.

[tngledwebb]

163. You must realize...

The Official CT'ers ,(like yourself?), and the Alternate CT'ers have differing opinions on the credibility of 'Official' reports. Some of those sources, perhaps most, are IN on the CT, including mass media. The world changed Nov. 2000, not withstanding 9/11. You should agree with that, as a liberal Democrat, and acknowledge the impasse created when sourcing Govt, FBI, 9/11 Commission, and other 'Official' reports.

[RH]

167. What about the point?

If the World changed so much how come that affected the credibility of an autopsy but not the credibilty of the BTS database?

You are attempting to justify prejudice. One thing that has not changed so much is the usual practice of jurisprudence. If you want to impugn an autopsy you've got to come up with some evidence against it. It is no good just to look the other way because your mind was already made up.

So for time being I shall continue to realize the incredibilty of the pick and mix approach to evidence.

Have you actually looked into the way that the autopsy was conducted? If it were an FBI affair involving a handful of people I'd have my doubts, but it was just not like that.

[MercutioATC]

158. You obviously didn't understand my second paragraph.

Yes, the database is accurate. Those registrations are still active. The point is that an active registration doesn't prove that the plane still exists (as confirmed by the FAA itself...just call the toll-free number I provided in the subject thread).

What don't you understand about complicity? Even if you want to believe that the passengers and crew of the two (or four) planes are alive and well at some secret government base, over 3000 people are still dead. If United is still flying those planes, they have knowledge of a crime and are not reporting it. That makes them complicit.

Why would anybody comply with an administrative rule when doing so would make them guilty of a capital crime?

[DulceDecorum]

13. “A lie gets halfway around the world

before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”
-- Winston Churchill

[MercutioATC]

17. "De Doo Doo Doo, De Da Da Da

is all I want to say to you"
-- The Police

Your point?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DulceDecorum]

7. Are you sure you dialed the right number?

And even if somone said that, so WHAT?
Look at the LAW.
Look at the FAA regulations.

United Airlines has REFUSED to return the Triennial Report to the FAA.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/

[MercutioATC]

10. Heeeheee Just call the number, DD. Tell me what they say.

I've given you everything you need to verify or disprove your claim. Plus, you can do it yourself! It doesn't require you to trust that I'm telling the truth.

Just call.

[DulceDecorum]

12. THE LAW says

that the registration is invalid IF
the plane has been destroyed.

What PROOF do you have of the destruction of that plane?

And WHEN was that plane destroyed?
Especially N591UA
which has been seen flying around O'Hare under the alias N594UA?

According to the FAA website,
BOTH AA planes were DESTROYED on January 14, 2002
and that is all there is to it.

[MercutioATC]

15. THE FAA says...well, you know what they say, I've already told you.

...and if you don't believe me, you can check by simply dialing 10 digits.

The issue here isn't whether I have proof of the destruction of any planes, it's whether your claim that the FAA database is proof of their continued existance. Let's just stick to one topic at a time.

You keep claiming that N591UA (apparently now N594UA) has been seen at O'hare. By whom? Any verification of that? It seems I've asked you this before and recieved some answer about you "not revealing sources" or some such thing.

I know what the database SAYS. I've never disputed that. It doesn't MEAN what you think it does, however...


...just call, DD.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

21. Nice bunny, but that's still not the way it works...

Sure, the FAA has the authority to revoke a registration. That's not part of the procedure in cases like this, though. Why? I don't know. That doesn't change the fact that it's not.

...also, some might consider your post offensive to FAA information personnel and, possibly, women in general.

Just something to think about...

[DulceDecorum]

22. MercutioATC,

WHAT does US FEDERAL LAW
say about the registration of civilian planes?
What does INTERNAIONAL LAW (the UN treaties)
say about the registration of civilian planes?

In the case of N591UA and N612UA,
has United Airlines compiled with Federal law?
In the case of N591UA and N612UA,
has United Airlines compiled with International law?

MercutioATC says:
Sure, the FAA has the authority to revoke a registration. That's not part of the procedure in cases like this, though. Why? I don't know. That doesn't change the fact that it's not.

THAT sir,
is a tacit admission
that neither plane is engaged in activities of a CIVILIAN nature.
The FAA is powerless to act in the case of a plane that has been comandeered by the military.

Have you called United Airlines
and asked them their reasons for NOT complying
with Federal and International laws
concerning the registration of CIVILIAN aircraft?

[MercutioATC]

24. You DO realize that makes no sense, don't you?

You're now claiming that the planes are being used by the military?

I thought they were being flown out of O'Hare...

Additionally, why would the military (or United or American) not cancel the civilian registrations if they were using the planes covertly? The FAA could cancel the CIVILIAN registration of a military plane any time it wanted to (not that military planes fly with civilian registrations). You're not making sense, because the FAA wouldn't be doing anything other than cancelling the CIVILIAN registration, something it has the power to do. The military using the plane covertly wouldn't have any effect on that power.

No, I haven't called United. Let's stick to the issue at hand. When we're done, feel free to start a post encouraging people to call United. Deal?

[seatnineb]

28. Military planes in Chicago o' Hare.....

Merc hypothesis:

You're(To DulceDecorum) now claiming that the (9/11)planes are being used by the military?
I thought they were being flown out of O'Hare...

As it turns out.....

Chicago O'Hare is not a shy airport when it comes to Military planes...

The military could have had as many takeoffs and landings as it needed, but it had only about 10 flights a day in and out of O'Hare.
http://www.jessejacksonjr.com/issues/i07129834.html.

[MercutioATC]

31. Oh, THAT answers the question! Hehehe...

Fine, how about the rest of my question?

[tngledwebb]

65. Bebe s'amuse...

As Dulce was. Are you familiar with page 346, Section 7, article 12 of the PC handbook? Or the US Constitution before it was made null and void by Patriot Act I? Or the Patriot Act itself? This little thread is still a free speech zone, within DU guidelines, I believe. And did you even stop for one second to think how the bunny rabbits feel?

[seatnineb]

26. American Airlines Flight 11 ...flying to JFK............

The "F.A.A live feed" actually backed up what Dulce has been sayin all along.......

A certain poster at the airliners.net forum had the audacity to actually check the current status of American Airlines Flight 11 at least 40 minutes AFTER it had supposedly crashed on the morning of 9/11 itself............


Username: Cre
From United States, joined Jun 2000, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply: 83
Posted Tue Sep 11 2001 15:36:46 UTC+1 and read 32691 times:

nbc saying it was AA11, 1 757 from bos to lax and was hijacked and diverted to jfk?
flightarrivals.com says that flight is still underway?
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/570206

So there it is.......
American Airlines Flight 11 still flying long after the North Tower had some unidentified plane fly into it.

FlightArrivals.com updates its page every 4 minutes.....
http://www.flightarrivals.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Flights

[MercutioATC]

27. That has nothing to do with the FAA database.

Attempts to change the subject have already been made. Once we deal with this issue, I'll be happy to discuss this matter with you, but it has nothing to do with the thread topic.

[seatnineb]

29. You'll answer the question now!

Summone all your knowledge of ACARS,ARINC,the F.A.A "live feed" and real time software functionality to tell me how flightarrivals.com
managed to say the following.....50 minutes AFTER American Airlines Flight 11 had allegedly flown into the North Tower.

Username: Cre
From United States, joined Jun 2000, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply: 83
Posted Tue Sep 11 2001 15:36:46 UTC+1 and read 32691 times:

nbc saying it was AA11, 1 757 from bos to lax and was hijacked and diverted to jfk?
flightarrivals.com says that flight is still underway?
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/570206

Go on Merc........
Blow me into oblivion with your superior knowledge.

[RH]

30. Did you read the rest of the page?

How much of the hearsay now appears with hindsight to have been reliable informed? Nobody knew what the hell was going on. If ever there was any proof of that, there you have it.

Possibly AA11 was registered as diverted to JFK, but you'll need to back it up from a primary source.

It is an interesting angle but what would it prove anyway?

[seatnineb]

32. Perspective.

Let me put this into perspective for you RH.

You see this poor woman.


Well this poor woman ,at some point between 8:46am and 10:29am on 9/11/01 stood at EXACTLY THE SAME POINT were this happened......


With the evidence presented so far.........
There is no-way that a 767 by the name of American Airlines Flight 11 flew into this building.

Period.

[RH]

34. Huh???????

Is that supposed to make some kind of sense?

The particularly supposed connection betwen the woman and Flight 11 would be ......?

[tngledwebb]

36. this photo is very important

not just for the figure of the woman. It is simply impossible to see evidence of anything big as a Boeing, anywhere inside. Could a fuselage, wings, engines, and a tail have all been completely buried behind those half broken columns? And how would a person who survived that destruction been able to make their way to the opening through the carnage? Everythiing is too neat and clean. No, this was a small missile paired with internal charges shaped like a plane to make sure there would be no problems.

[seatnineb]

46. Yo tngledwebb!

Pleasure to meet you.............

:hi:

Like RH, I am a U.K citizen aswell...........

But I am afraid that is where the similarity ends.

His reaction to my post of the woman was far to predictable.......

As things stand we have to concede that people who think this way are in the majority.......

But the real question is.........
For how long?
;)

[MercutioATC]

52. Yes, it IS important.

Notice the width of the breach and the lack of any bent columns facing outward.

I'm no crash expert, but this would seem to indicate that something large hit the wall and breached it. It would also seem to indicate that the force came from outside the building, not inside.

Of course, I'm no expert.....

[tngledwebb]

66. You may be right one way or the other..

No experts on this forum 'lessen they say so... But the columns don't go IN enough to allow a BIG plane through, and plane wreckage, wings, tail, etc not visible in THIS photo. Was this building built by the folks who built the new Pentagon wall? Is this building Boeingovorous too? What about the woman, lack of fires and heavy smoke? Btw, have you seen F/911?

[robodruid]

33. about that data

just to drop a note here....

The software that lets you track where the plane is has been wrong. My parents have been tracking my flying. They were shocked to learn that my flight was delayed by 2 hours when the web said I was in the air...

but I'm just a guy on the web.

[LARED]

37. What are talking about?

The "F.A.A live feed" actually backed up what Dulce has been sayin all along.......

A certain poster at the airliners.net forum had the audacity to actually check the current status of American Airlines Flight 11 at least 40 minutes AFTER it had supposedly crashed on the morning of 9/11 itself............


Still flying according to airliners.com. Wow, what detective work!!!!! Of course the flight would have been underway if it was not diverted to the WTC. It makes perfect sense that the flight is underway until it lands at it destination. It's an automated system. Without a landing it is still in flight.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seatnineb]

51. Message II

O.K..........

Lets try again.........

LARED declares.......
It makes perfect sense that the flight is underway until it lands at it destination. It's an automated system. Without a landing it is still in flight.

Try telling that to this fellow.......

Steve Holland, the husband of Cora Holland,a passenger onboard American Airlines Flight 11.

As told by Steve(and Cora) Holland's daughter.
Stephaney Holland - Broadney.
On C.N.N.....

when anyone in my family flies he(Steve Holland-father) would bring up the American Airlines Web site** on his laptop and just track us. Because my mom(Cora Holland) always worried about us kids, and she always liked to know exactly where we were, even in flight.

L. KING: So you can track a plane across its complete flight from takeoff to landing?

BROADNEY: Yes you can, get elevation, turns, everything, it was quite amazing.

L. KING: So he saw Flight 11 do what?

BROADNEY: Disappear off the screen. And I believe a message came up, that said contact American Airlines. And then from with that, I think within ten minutes, he realized that what had happened. And my mother's flight had crashed.
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/16/lklw.00.html.

This is corroborated by the FlightArivals.com website.........
As told by another poster who goes by the name of BodoDodo:


Username: Bodobodo
From Canada, joined May 2000, 552 posts, RR: 13
Reply: 114
Posted Tue Sep 11 2001 15:46:52 UTC+1 and read 32344 times:

If it was an American Airlines flight from BOS to LAX it seems like it would be AA011, a 762 out of Boston. I checked the flight trackers and they no longer have information on it. The trip actually shows its location over NYC with heading unknown. Flightarrivals.com shows no information on it with a note to CONTACT AIRLINE. This is horrible. I'm hoping that this is the only major airliner involved and that the other collision wasn't also something this large.
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/570206

So as I said before.........

The update regarding the fate of AA11 was made on Flightarrivals.com.

Only it was made 1 hour after Mohammed Atta had crashed this plane into the North Tower.
And for most of that hour ,Flightarrivals.com was saying that AA11 was still in flight..

How is this possible for a website which updates itself every 4 minutes
http://www.flightarrivals.com


**
I have been to the American Airlines web site and have NOT been able to find this flight tracking option.
http://aa.com

[MercutioATC]

53. We need to know what their data source is before we can determine

anything. I've sent an e-mail and asked them. I'll let you know what they say.

[Abe Linkman]

54. Competition is brutal and widespread

They use the same definition of "fair" as bushco, too.

[reorg]

58. flight tracker

has probably nothing to do with AA, Google finds e. g.:

http://www.flightview.com/TravelTools/default.asp

"RLM Software is the leading provider of real-time flight tracking solutions for the travel industry, general public and Federal Government. Founded in 1981, RLM Software was the first non-airline organization approved to receive Aircraft Situation Display (ASD) data from the FAA, and went on to develop FlightView, the first commercially-available radar-based flight tracking system.

In 1996, RLM Software brought real-time flight tracking to the World Wide Web, making current flight information available to the general public for the first time. Today RLM Software offers a full suite of FlightView products which are used daily by thousands at aviation and travel-related organizations and web sites."

[reorg]

62. flightarrival.com and flight tracker - weird inaccuracies

Just played this little game. Early in the morning, I can clearly hear the first incoming south bound flights passing by when they make one final turn before landing in Frankfurt/Main airport. Curious if I could identify them, I watched flighttracker.lycos.com, and compared the data (estimated arrival time) with those presented at two other sites: flightarrivals.com, and the "current arrivals" list at the website of Frankfurt airport.

As strange as it may seem, the estimated arrival times for all these early incoming flights were never identical. Even after the plane had landed, the arrival time was stated differently at these sites.

E. g. DLH 463, scheduled arrival: 6.25 on Aug 19 (+1)

Estimated arrival:

"Estimated arrival time" at flighttracker.lycos.com was 6.08 for quite a while, shortly before landing it was adjusted to 6.11. At 6.11 the entry label changed to "actual arrival time" and data on height and speed were no longer given (which hardly if ever seemed to change, anyway - at 6.10 the plane was allegedly still at around 34000 ft and speed was adjusted only once from about 500 knots to 250).

At flightarrival.com, the arrival time was updated more often, at last almost every other minute, until they stayed with 6.08. Even after 6.08, though, and even though there was still a note in this yellow field that the plane was expected to arrive "shortly". This note was only changed to "landed" at around 6.25 (while the arrival entry "6.08" remained unchanged).

The "current arrival" board at Frankfurt airport had the arrival estimated at 6.21 all along and never changed this entry until they informed at around 6.20 that the plane was about to land and finally at around 6.25 that the plane had landed (which coincidentally or not is the scheduled arrival time).

When did the plane arrive: at 6.08 as stated at flightarrival.com, or at 6.11 as recorded by flighttracker.lycos.com, or after 6.21, when the info board in Frankfurt and flightarrival.com changed their entry from "expected to land shortly" to "landed"?

I also watched the data for two other flights, and there were similar discrepancies.

There seem to be different sources for the data, or maybe different interpretations for what "arrival" means. Possible that flightarrival.com just wait for confirmation from the airport that a plane has landed.



http://flighttracker.lycos.com/

http://www.flightarrivals.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Flights.woa/3/wo/GztcC1hIAX8CgkeT1o1/7.13

http://www1.frankfurt-airport.com/cms/default/rubrik/3/3898.current_flight_arrivals.htm

[seatnineb]

78. Flightarrivals.com....some details.......

Reorg........

I played a similar game.

With an American Airlines flight from Boston to Orlando.
The flight number was 2067.(August 20)
As the plane was ascending after take-off.
FlightArrivals.com gave... within the space of 2 minutes...
....the changing speeds and altitudes.
Once it had reached cruising altitude ,FlightArrivals.com then gave the amount of time left for the journey.

Now you may question the discrepancies between variouse flight tracker web-sites which still amount to no more than a few minutes.....

Which is far different to an update regarding the crash of AA11 on 9/11/01 which came 1 hour AFTER AA11 had supposedly crashed.

FlightArrivals.com is regarded by many to be the fastest flight tracker on the web .....so fast that U.S airports such as Dulles,Reagan and SanDiego use FlightArrivals.com to provide their passengers with the latest info.

The FlightArrivals.com website is run by Technology Integration Sevices who have deals with 35 U.S airports.

The website uses an OpenBase 6.5 relational database(from which all the data is stored) with a WebObjects application server.

FlightArrivals.com are based in........you Guessed it.......
Herndon ,VA!
Which just happens to also be the local hangout of the good ol' F.A.A Head-Quarters.........

My guess is that flight arrivals.com retrieves information from the F.A.A Traffic Management System and adds it to their own database......

For their part the F.A.A get their information from the Airline Companies who in turn extract information via the ACARS/ARINC link from the relevant aircraft itself(in this case American Airlines Flight 11).

So according to this web-site ,American Airlines Flight 11 was still in the air for the best part of an hour after the North Tower took a direct hit?

And the existence of an NBC report about Flight 11 being hijacked and diverted to JFK airport at least 50 minutes after it had crashed is backed up by 2 different posters on 2 different forums from the morning of 9/11 itself.....

To: Diogenesis
american flight number 11 was told it was being diverted to
jfk.....
44 posted on 09/11/2001 6:37:06 AM PDT by missouri4bush
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/520268/posts


Username: Cre
From United States, joined Jun 2000, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply: 83
Posted Tue Sep 11 2001 15:36:46 UTC+1 and read 30163 times:
NBC saying it was AA11, 1 757 from bos to lax and was hijacked and diverted to jfk?
flightarrivals.com says that flight is still underway?
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/568641

[reorg]

80. still not convinced ...

>>My guess is that flight arrivals.com retrieves information from the F.A.A Traffic Management System and adds it to their own database......<<

Yes, that would seem logical to me.

What seemed odd in my little experiment, however, was that the -- up to this point frequently updated -- information on the expected time of arrival, 6.08 h, was never updated AFTER 6.08 h.

Even though they still had this notice in this yellow field that the plane was going to land "shortly". And when this entry was finally changed at about 6.25 to "landed" (or whatever the exact wording is), the arrival time of 6.08 remained there!

As I said, my best guess is that flightarrivals.com may be waiting for confirmation from the airport to state that a plane has landed (while the info on the arrival time may be from somewhere else, the FAA probably).

I do not know what the actual arrival time was. Maybe the stated time was correct and just the confirmation was delayed? Or maybe the FAA only reports data up to a certain point and does not report when a plane is in the waiting loop, circling once or twice around the city waiting for a landing slot?

Anyway, the discrepancy between final stated arrival time at flightarrivals (6.08) and the point in time the entry "landing shortly" (which I suppose means the same as "still in the air") was changed to "landed" (6.25) is only 17 minutes - but this is on a normal day, early in the morning when not much traffic is in the air. (And I observed similar discrepancies with the two other flights I watched that morning).

So I am personally not inclined to make too much of the info that flightarrivals.com reported on 9/11 that Flight 11 was still in the air, even if in this case the discrepancy was an hour or so. If my (admittedly somewhat wild) guess is correct and waiting for confirmation from the airport is indeed the normal procedural step before stating that a plane has landed, they could obviously not have gotten this info in time, could they?

[seatnineb]

134. Radar + ACARS /ARINC = Flight 11 still flying.....

Sorry Reorg.......

But Flight 11 is still doin its thing AFTER THE North Tower took a direct hit from something........

A quiet tremor rolled through the room, replaced by the buzz of urgent questions into phones. What kind of aircraft hit the building? A small plane? A large plane? Could it be Flight 11?

Boston Center was still tracking a blip believed to be Flight 11.
http://www.mistakesweremade.com/newhousenews012502.html

A belief backed up by information from these 2 forums AS everything was happening......

To: Diogenesis

american flight number 11 was told it was being diverted to
jfk.....

44 posted on 09/11/2001 6:37:06 AM PDT by missouri4bush
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/520268/posts


Username: Cre
From United States, joined Jun 2000, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply: 83
Posted Tue Sep 11 2001 15:36:46 UTC+1 and read 30163 times:

NBC saying it was AA11, 1 757 from bos to lax and was hijacked and diverted to jfk?
flightarrivals.com says that flight is still underway?

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/r...

[The Straight Story]

59. Perhaps

Perhaps a search of thomas.loc.gov or even better http://www.google.com/unclesam can find the actual laws on the books which will put this to rest. Might look later myself if I get time.

Thanks for the posts.

[MercutioATC]

60. Regardless of the letter of the law, this is the way it's done.

That's my point. The registration holder needs to contact the FAA to have a registration removed from the database. They don't do it otherwise.

[The Straight Story]

61. I understand that

But I think some believe that if they call a number and a government employee says so than it is really a Bush puppet telling them. I would imagine such a law has been on the books for many years...

[MercutioATC]

63. I agree with you, but doesn't that show a certain level of unfounded

paranoia in your opinion (in this case)? We're not talking about classified information here, we're talking about a simple database management question.

Actually, this entire issue should have been dismissed at first glance. IF these planes were still flying (used by the military or not) there would be absolutely NO reason to leave the civil registrations active. I'd just like to hear, one time, how this theory makes any sense.

I'm just attempting another way to put the issue to rest...hearing the procedure from the horse's mouth.

It's not like I don't have any experience with this. I have a friend who wants a specific tail number for a plane she's building. The plane currently bearing that registration number is rusting in a barn and will never fly again, yet the owner refuses to give up the registration number. The plane isn't flying, yet the registration remains active.

That's been my issue with the majority of conspiracy theories here. They base their "proof" (at least in part) on complete fallacies. If I have no information that would refute the theory, I say so. Remote-control of the planes is an example. I don't think it's likely, but I don't have any proof that's contrary to the possibility of a remote control device being hidden in the planes and used to assume control by somebody.

This isn't one of those cases. I know the procedure and it's not as it's been presented by some of the posters here.

[MercutioATC]

25. You posted a link to the 5th Amendment, why?

:shrug:

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[MercutioATC]

40. Woohoo! Grovelbot makes an appearance!

[Robb]

55. I think this is the part where I make a snide comment...

...about any post with more than 50 responses, a handful of deleted messages, and the words "put to rest" in the thread title. :evilgrin:

[MercutioATC]

56. I really need a thumb-biting smilie...

Robb! What brings you to the beautiful 9/11 forum?

Good to see ya again.

:hi:

[DulceDecorum]

79. The REAL CHALLENGE

was to explain why the plane are still listed.
And listed they are.

MercutioATC says:
I just called and was told that the FAA must receive notification from the registration holder before it removes a registration from the database. The FAA does not do it on their own.

MercutioATC,
you claim to be an Air Traffic Controller
and as such you MUST be aware of the Jones Act.
http://www.shipguide.com/jones-act/

And you also MUST be aware that
neither the DMV,
nor the phone company,
not the pharmacy,
will release or alter any information without some sort of proof
that you are the owner of the account
or have some higher authority.

The two planes
N591UA aka Flight 93 and
N612UA aka Flight 175,
appear on the US Civil Aviation Registry.
As far as I have been able to determine,
United Airlines operates/operated them
under a financing agreement
apparently held by State Street Bank and Trust Co of Connecticut.
State Street does NOT own the planes
and neither does United Airlines.
State Street is simply holding the titles in trust
for the foreign owner
who has so far been nameless.

WHEREFORE, the Debtors (UAL CORPORATION) respectfully request that the Court enter an order requiring the
Trustees and Record Owners to disclose the identity of all the Public Debtholders relating to the
Financed Aircraft and granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
http://www.pd-ual.com/Downloads/Rule%202004.pdf.

Until this unknown owner
instructs State Street to remove the plane from the US Civil Registry
it may well remain on that list.

Sec. 47.41 - Duration and return of Certificate.
(a) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA under this subpart is effective, unless suspended or revoked, until the date upon which --
(2) The registration is canceled at the written request of the holder of the certificate;
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part47-41-FAR.shtml

The phone call confirmed this.
This was never a point of contention.

Deregistered Aircraft
An aircraft that has been removed from the U.S. Civil Aircraft Register at the owner's request. Aircraft are generally removed for the following reasons: exported, destroyed, salvaged, dismantled, or permanently retired from service.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/definitions.asp

What is a point of contention is the fate of the plane.

Sec. 47.41 - Duration and return of Certificate.
(a) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA under this subpart is effective, unless suspended or revoked, until the date upon which --
(3) The aircraft is totally destroyed or scrapped;
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part47-41-FAR.shtml

The Certificate of Aircraft Registration
issued by the FAA to N591UA
CONTINUES to be VALID.
The Certificate of Aircraft Registration
issued by the FAA to N612UA
CONTINUES to be VALID.

The FAA is well aware of the rumors circulating about those two planes.
In fact, one of our esteemed colleagues,
here at the 911 forum on the Democratic Underground,
has called to ask them about their continued insistence
that planes maintain their VALID registrations.
He was duly and courteously informed that
the FAA has NO PLANS to remove said planes
from the US Civil registry until further notice.

The registrations will remain as they are: VALID.
That can only mean that N591UA and N612UA are in compliance with

Sec. 47.41 - Duration and return of Certificate.
(a) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA under this subpart is effective, unless suspended or revoked, until the date upon which --
(3) The aircraft is totally destroyed or scrapped;
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part47-41-FAR.shtml

In other words,
the planes have NOT BEEN totally destroyed or scrapped.
And THIS is the point of contention since
MercutioATC appears to believe that the FAA will uphold one section of the law and totally disregard the part right next to it.

The FAA website gives a faithful and accurate record of the registration
AS IT WAS FILED
by those purporting to be the owners.
Every three years, the registration must be renewed. Both N591UA and N612UA are long overdue
because the US Postal service cannot locate the owner.

Physical Address
Physical location or address of an applicant using a P O Box or mail drop for mailing purposes

Undeliverable Triennial
Indicates a Triennial Aircraft Registration Report was returned by the Post Office as undeliverable.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/definitions.asp

So the question now is,
why has the FAA NOT taken the following steps?

In Question
The status of an aircraft's certificate of registration is changed to "In Question" when the aircraft's record contains information which, if true, would render the certificate ineffective.

Notice of Ineffectiveness
FAA Legal Counsel has determined possible non-compliance with regulatory requirements which may render the Certificate of Aircraft Registration ineffective.
Revoked
The Certificate of Aircraft Registration was revoked through enforcement action by FAA Legal Counsel's Office.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/definitions.asp

MercutioATC appears to believe that the planes were destroyed on September 11, 2001.
Therefore, the record is In Question.

MercutioATC appears to believe that the planes have been incapable of flight since September 11, 2001.
Therefore, the planes are NOT airworthy
and as such they deserve to be issued a Notice of Ineffectiveness.

MercutioATC appears to believe that the planes no longer actually exist.
Therefore, the Certificate of Aircraft Registration should be revoked.

MercutioATC appears to believe that the FAA does not automatically remove planes from the database.

Let me assure you all
that it is the FAA who calls the shots,
and NOT the anonymous owner.
If the FAA has NOT pulled those registrations,
under the authority vested in it by
FAR Sec. 47.41 (a)(3)
then the FAA has GOOD reasons for not doing so.
The planes are alive.

[RH]

81. You seem to suppose that

the meanings of "effective" and "valid" are identical.

If so why are two different terms employed?

In most administrative set ups the usual reason for a step not to be taken is that everybody thinks it is everybody else's job to do so.

Some things serve better to prove a case than others. If somebody tells me the house is on fire I look for smoke and flames; I don't consult a database.

[DulceDecorum]

82. Is that the best you can do?

Ask for the difference in meaning between "effective" and "valid"?

WAS that ALL you could say
about that great big long well-substantiated post?

[RH]

83. It would appear to be more

than anybody else could do or say.

Do you have an answer to the question?

[DulceDecorum]

86. You didn't

ask any.

[RH]

91. Yes I did.

You seem to suppose that the meanings of "effective" and "valid" are identical. If so why are two different terms employed?

That is a question.

?

[DulceDecorum]

94. Ask

the people who wrote those words.
Or answer it yourself.
:hi:

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RH]

110. It was your argument, DD,

thus your responsibility to justify it.

So to help towards that, here is is a suggestion:

"Valid" forms a sub set of "effective", the latter being the practical substance and the former being the qualification of it.

You said that "A look at the FAA website demonstrates that the registrations of those two planes continue to be VALID."

You also said that "As far as I have been able to determine,
United Airlines operates/operated them
under a financing agreement
apparently held by State Street Bank and Trust Co of Connecticut.
State Street does NOT own the planes
and neither does United Airlines.
State Street is simply holding the titles in trust
for the foreign owner
who has so far been nameless." (message #79, the REAL Challenge)

Well the terms of validity are here:

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part47-43-FAR.shtml

It says that
(a) The registration of an aircraft is invalid if, at the time it is made -- ......
(2) The applicant is not the owner;


So if United Airlines is not the owner, as you said, the matter of the registration is not then their responsibility, is it?

Or conversely, if United airlines applied without being the owner, then the registration is invalid, in which case, according to your convoluted logic, their plane does not possibly exist.

Q.E.D.

[DulceDecorum]

111. RH says:

"Valid" forms a sub set of "effective", the latter being the practical substance and the former being the qualification of it.

I think that qualifies as an own-goal.

[MercutioATC]

84. I figured it would come to something like this...

You insist on using incorrect information in numerous posts to support the theory that crashed planes are still flying.

I provide a toll-free telephone number you can call that will positively show that your assumption is wrong.

You respond by refusing to call the number and saying that the government is just lying.

You win, DD. There's NO way you're going to admit to posting misinformation, even in the face of proof that anybody can verify for themselves. I'll still be setting the record straight when I see known falsehoods posted...

Apparently, it's true. You can lead a horse to water.....

[DulceDecorum]

85. Calling the FAA demonstrates

that they ARE following their own regulations.

That is why the planes are STILL registered.
They do not remove perfectly healthy planes from the register
unless the owner asks them to
and tells them why.

That IS what the phone bunny told you, isn't it?

The planes are properly registered
and they are going to stay that way.
And that is all there is to that.

MercutioATC says:
You insist on using incorrect information in numerous posts to support the theory that crashed planes are still flying.
I provide a toll-free telephone number you can call that will positively show that your assumption is wrong.
You respond by refusing to call the number and saying that the government is just lying.

MercutioATC,
where did I say the government was lying and about what?
I distinctly remember supplying all links to the government websites and I have been supportive of the FAA for obeying federal law and for daring to tell us the truth about the planes of September 11, 2001.

When did I refuse to call the toll free number?
The FAA is obeying its mandate to properly register and record the particulars of planes on the US Civil Aviation Registry. It just so happens that some toes are being stepped on but that is hardly the fault of the FAA. Calling the toll free number will demonstrate that the FAA is aware of the regulations and is indeed complying with them.

Are you trying to say that the FAR regulations pertaining to the registration of aircraft are MISINFORMATION?
Or are you trying to say that registrations posted on the FAA website are MISINFORMATION?
Because that is all that I have posted,
and you, MercutioATC has just said
"You win, DD. There's NO way you're going to admit to posting misinformation, even in the face of proof that anybody can verify for themselves. I'll still be setting the record straight when I see known falsehoods posted..."

Gosh darn, MercutioATC,
just slap that government in the face
with the facts that they have posted on their own websites.

Incidentally,
most of us here have no recollection of ever having asked you to prove that the FAA does not remove planes from the registry unless asked to do so.

What we DO remember is asking you to explain why it is that the FAA seems to think that those planes are STILL ALIVE.
And you have NOT answered THAT question.

[MercutioATC]

87. Calling the FAA demonstrates that your premise is flawed.

You cite the FAA database's active registrations as PROOF that those planes are still flying. If the FAA requires a registration holder to request the removal of a registration from the database and the registration holder fails to do so, the FAA does not remove the record. It all hinges on the compliance of the registration holder. That does NOT constitute proof.

You've stated the government is lying by suggesting that these two planes are now being used by the military (when they said they'd crashed).

You did actually call the number? Good for you! At least you've been exposed to the information first-hand. Now, possibly, you'll allow that all an active database entry really means is that the registration owner hasn't requested the registration be removed from the database. The way the procedure works, it would be completely possible for an owner to crash an airplane and neglect to file the paperwork, resulting in an active listing for a crashed plane.

That's the "misinformation" I was referring to. You present an incomplete argument (by not explaining the procedure) and attempt to say that it means the planes are still flying when, in fact, it simply means that paperwork was not filed.

As far as your last two paragraphs, that is exactly what I've done. I've maintained that the FAA does NOT "think that those planes are STILL ALIVE". An active registration isn't a statement that the plane is still "alive".

[DulceDecorum]

88. MercutioATC says:

The way the procedure works, it would be completely possible for an owner to crash an airplane and neglect to file the paperwork, resulting in an active listing for a crashed plane.

Sec. 47.41 - Duration and return of Certificate.
a) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA under this subpart is effective, unless suspended or revoked, until the date upon which --
(3) The aircraft is totally destroyed or scrapped;
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part47-41-FAR.shtml

If the planes DID indeed crash on September 11, 2001, and
if the FAA is made aware of the "fact" that
the planes were totally destroyed or scrapped
then the Certificate of Aircraft Registration is no longer EFFECTIVE.

EFFECTIVE adj.
Operative; in effect: The law is effective immediately.
Existing in fact; actual: a decline in the effective demand

A look at the FAA website demonstrates that the registrations of those two planes continue to be VALID.

VALID adj.
Of sound health; robust.
(Law) Having legal strength or force; executed with the proper formalities; incapable of being rightfully overthrown or set aside; as, a valid deed; a valid covenant; a valid instrument of any kind; a valid claim or title; a valid marriage.

MercutioATC
go ask the FAA what happens to a registration
when the FAA is made aware that, as defined by
Sec. 47.41
(3) The aircraft is totally destroyed or scrapped.

MercutioATC,
then ask them why
BOTH American Airlines planes are recorded
as having been totally destroyed or scrapped on JANUARY 14, 2002.

Sec. 47.41 - Duration and return of Certificate.
a) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA under this subpart is effective, unless suspended or revoked,
UNTIL THE DATE UPON WHICH --
(3) The aircraft is totally destroyed or scrapped;
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part47-41-FAR.shtml

MercutioATC says:
You cite the FAA database's active registrations as PROOF that those planes are still flying. If the FAA requires a registration holder to request the removal of a registration from the database and the registration holder fails to do so, the FAA does not remove the record. It all hinges on the compliance of the registration holder. That does NOT constitute proof.

Sec. 47.41 - Duration and return of Certificate
(b) The Certificate of Aircraft Registration, with the reverse side completed, must be returned to the FAA Aircraft Registry --
3) Upon the termination of the registration, by the holder of the Certificate of Aircraft Registration in all other cases mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section.
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part47-41-FAR.shtml

Sec. 47.41 - Duration and return of Certificate.
a) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA under this subpart is effective, unless suspended or revoked,
UNTIL THE DATE UPON WHICH --
(3) The aircraft is totally destroyed or scrapped;
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part47-41-FAR.shtml

Either the law is being upheld by the FAA
OR
the law is NOT being upheld by the FAA.
MercutioATC called the FAA
and has reported that the law is indeed being upheld
and that the owner has NOT reported anything adverse to the FAA
as required by

Sec. 47.41 - Duration and return of Certificate
(b) The Certificate of Aircraft Registration, with the reverse side completed, must be returned to the FAA Aircraft Registry --
3) Upon the termination of the registration, by the holder of the Certificate of Aircraft Registration in all other cases mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section.
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part47-41-FAR.shtml

THE PLANES ARE ALIVE.

[MercutioATC]

89. Congratgulations! That's the most convoluted argument I've seen.

The fact remains that the registration holder must request that the registration be removed. American obviously did just that on January 14. United hasn't yet.

It's really just that simple...

[seatnineb]

90. United Airlines upholds the law........

And here is why United Airlines have upheld the law and have subsequently NOT requested that the registration of N612UA aka UA Flight175 be revoked.....

Posted Tue Sep 11 2001 16:30:01 UTC+1 and read 23737 times:

One tower collapsed. UA 175 still flying. All flights and airports suspended and closed for 7 hours. many people jumped out of the building too.
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/568422

UA Flight 175(N612UA) still flying.......at least 1 and a 1/2 hours AFTER the South Tower was hit by........some unidentified plane.........

9-11-01 Latest News
Terrorist Attack News
Calisuri @ 9:45 am EST
Red Cross appeals for blood: 1-800-448-3543
9:41am PT

Unconfirmed:
The second flight was not a regular plane, but there were no windows on the side, which means it was not a passanger jet.



United Flight 175 is missing (Boston to LA)
http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1000215900.

[MercutioATC]

92. THAT'S your "evidence"???

There were unconfirmed reports (and confirmed reports) of everything from a Cessna to an Airbus320 hitting the WTC towers. Bombs, helicopters and commercial airliners hitting the Pentagon. "Confirmed" report of a car bomb at the State Department.

Early reports aren't reliable.

The rest of your post is just a rehash of the "no windows" issue we've dealt with before.

What I find amusing is your statement "And here is why United Airlines have upheld the law and have subsequently NOT requested that the registration of N612UA aka UA Flight175 be revoked....."

How would claiming a loss to their insurance company be "upholding the law"? You really believe that United hasn't filed paperwork because they're "upholding the law" even though (if your theory is true) they've lied to the government and made false insurance claims?

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[DulceDecorum]

96. United Airlines

is listed as the owner.
It has been claimed that N591UA and N612UA crashed on September 11, 2001.
Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA is effective, until the date upon which the aircraft is totally destroyed or scrapped.
The Certificate of Aircraft Registration, with the reverse side completed, must be returned to the FAA Aircraft Registry Upon the termination of the registration, by the holder of the Certificate of Aircraft Registration if the plane is totally destroyed or scrapped.

The Certificate of Aircraft Registration for N591UA continues to be VALID.
The Certificate of Aircraft Registration for N612UA continues to be VALID.
THOSE ARE THE FACTS.

It has been suggested that Risingup Aviation is not an authoritative source of information. We beg to differ.
Here is an alternative link to the same information.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/14cfr47_02.html
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/14cfrv1_02.html
http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=200214

And for those of you who prefer html
here is another direct source.

THIS DATA CURRENT AS OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER DATED MARCH 13, 2003
14 CFR
Aeronautics and Space
CHAPTER I
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SUBCHAPTER C -- AIRCRAFT
PART 47 -- AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION

§47.41 Duration and return of Certificate.

(a) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA under this subpart is effective, unless suspended or revoked, until the date upon which --

(1) Subject to the Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft when applicable, the aircraft is registered under the laws of a foreign country;

(2) The registration is canceled at the written request of the holder of the certificate;

(3) The aircraft is totally destroyed or scrapped;

(4) Ownership of the aircraft is transferred;

(5) The holder of the certificate loses his U.S. citizenship;

(6) 30 days have elapsed since the death of the holder of the certificate;

(7) The owner, if an individual who is not a citizen of the United States, loses status as a resident alien, unless that person becomes a citizen of the United States at the same time; or

(8) If the owner is a corporation other than a corporation which is a citizen of the United States --

(i) The corporation ceases to be lawfully organized and doing business under the laws of the United States or any State thereof; or

(ii) A period described in §47.9(b) ends and the aircraft was not based and primarily used in the United States during that period.

(9) If the trustee in whose name the aircraft is registered --

(i) Loses U.S. citizenship;

(ii) Loses status as a resident alien and does not become a citizen of the United States at the same time; or

(iii) In any manner ceases to act as trustee and is not immediately replaced by another who meets the requirements of §47.7(c).

(b) The Certificate of Aircraft Registration, with the reverse side completed, must be returned to the FAA Aircraft Registry --

(1) In case of registration under the laws of a foreign country, by the person who was the owner of the aircraft before foreign registration;

(2) Within 60 days after the death of the holder of the certificate, by the administrator or executor of his estate, or by his heir-at-law if no administrator or executor has been or is to be appointed; or

(3) Upon the termination of the registration, by the holder of the Certificate of Aircraft Registration in all other cases mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section.
(Doc. No. 7190, 31 FR 4495, Mar. 17, 1966; 31 FR 5483, Apr. 7, 1966, as amended by Amdt. 47-20, 44 FR 61940, Oct. 29, 1979)
http://www.aviationtraining.com/otcgi/cfr/otfilter-21.htm

Flight 93 is STILL REGISTERED.
Flight 175 is STILL REGISTERED.
MercutioATC claims to have called the FAA
and established that they will remain registered
in compliance with this section of US Federal law.
THOSE ARE THE FACTS.

[MercutioATC]

97. Yes, those are the FACTS. Your CONCLUSON is flawed.

By your reasoning, American's planes continued to fly until January 14th. Why did they both suddenly crash on the 14th? It COULDN'T be that American just didn't file paperwork until then, could it? By the same token, it COULDN'T be that United simply has yet to file paperwork. Those planes MUST be flying because the database says so!

DD, do you see how silly this is?

[DulceDecorum]

99. Joe Friday

was known to ask for
just the facts.

MercutioATC admits that DulceDecorum has produced said facts.
This is a good beginning.

MercutioATC says:
By your reasoning, American's planes continued to fly until January 14th. Why did they both suddenly crash on the 14th? It COULDN'T be that American just didn't file paperwork until then, could it?

No, MercutioATC.
It CANNOT be that American just didn't file paperwork until then.
Consider, Exhibit 99.1
AMERICAN CONFIRMS TWO AIRCRAFT LOST

FORT WORTH, Texas - American Airlines confirmed today
that it lost two aircraft in tragic incidents this morning.
American said the flights were Flight 11, a Boeing 767 en
route from Boston to Los Angeles with 81 passengers, nine
flight attendants and two pilots; and Flight 77, a Boeing 757
operating from Washington Dulles to Los Angeles with 58
passengers, four flight attendants and two pilots.
Because of the heightened security due to the nature of
today's events, American said it is working closely with U.S.
government authorities and will not release more information
at this time.
The government has shut down the entire air traffic
system in the United States. American, TWA and American Eagle
will not operate.
"We are horrified by these tragic events," said Donald
J. Carty, chairman and CEO of American Airlines. "Our
thoughts and prayers go out to the families of all involved."
Media calls should be directed to the FBI. Customers who
wish to receive information about relatives should call
American's response number at 1-800-245-0999.

American Airlines not only issued this press release,
but it also found time
ON THAT SAME DAY
TO FILE PAPERWORK WITH THE SEC
regarding this incident.

Item 5. Other Events
AMR Corporation, parent company of American Airlines, Inc.
(American), is filing herewith a press release issued by
American on September 11, 2001 as Exhibit 99.1 which is
included herein. This press release was issued to confirm
that American lost two aircraft in tragic incidents this
morning. These flights were Flight 11, a Boeing 767 en route
from Boston to Los Angeles with 81 passengers, nine flight
attendants and two pilots; and Flight 77, a Boeing 757
operating from Washington Dulles to Los Angeles with 58
passengers, four flight attendants and two pilots.
Item 7. Financial Statements and Exhibits
The following exhibits are included herein:
99.1 Press Release
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/6201/000000620101500038/ar9118k.txt

Now, tell me MercutioATC,
do you see ANY REASON WHATSOEVER
to assume that this outfit
would neglect to file paperwork with the FAA?

Do you see ANY REASON WHATSOEVER
for American Airlines to violate Section 47:41?
Do you see ANY REASON WHATSOEVER
for the FAA to refuse to enforce Section 47:41?

No?
Then the bloody planes did NOT crash on September 11, 2001.
Case closed.

[LARED]

100. Simple logic tells you that

Now, tell me MercutioATC,
do you see ANY REASON WHATSOEVER
to assume that this outfit
would neglect to file paperwork with the FAA?

Do you see ANY REASON WHATSOEVER
for American Airlines to violate Section 47:41?
Do you see ANY REASON WHATSOEVER
for the FAA to refuse to enforce Section 47:41?

No?
Then the bloody planes did NOT crash on September 11, 2001.
Case closed.

Even if there was no reason whatsoever, it still does not mean the planes did not crash. Not doing something cannot logically lead to it making something happening.

[RH]

103. ANY REASON WHATSOEVER?

See my posting #101:

It is not necessarily so simple.

[DulceDecorum]

105. Simple:

would be the operative word.

[RH]

115. possession, bailee, lessee, contract, condition and assign

are the operative words.

The ownership of aircraft may be extraordinarily complicated. Seperate interests may own different parts of the same aircraft at the same time. I know of a solicitor who made a fortune out of arranging deals, giving advice in exactly that respect.

A registration belongs to the owner of an aircraft in which respect the definition of an owner includes
"a buyer in possession, a bailee, or a lessee of an aircraft under a contract of conditional sale, and the assignee of that person."

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/janqtr/14cfr47.5.htm


So was the aircraft leased? How exactly did United Airways fit into the picture?

If UA were contractors rather than owners what did the contract have to say about the loss of the aircraft?

Is it not reasonable to assume, prima facie that the legal relationship would would have to change? What use is an airline operator to an aircraft owner without the aircraft to put to use?

[DulceDecorum]

118. Go to the FAA website

and see who is listed as the OWNER of N591UA (Flight93)
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=591ua

Go to the FAA website and see who is listed as the OWNER of N612UA (Flight 175)
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=612ua

This aint bonnie ole Englande.
Youse in America now.
Capeesh?

[RH]

127. It is commendably observant

to note that the events were in the USA. I am not so sure that it is commendably pertinent.

I am concerned to understand what exactly it means to be listed as the owner with regard to the responsibilities within our given context, because a change of ownership in a different respect may have confused the issue. The rules refer to agents. The rules refer to trustees. The rules refer to holders. With legal documents when different terms are employed there is usually a reason to do so.

As a matter fact it is not so simple. Whether or not a step is actually taken is not so much a matter of what the listing declares. It is a matter of who was actually charged with the responsibility, which as best I can fathom would be a matter for the listed owner, not a matter for the aviation authority.

I am then suggesting that with the confusion of the rules, the destruction of aircraft, and the general disruption after 9/11 there was some considerable scope for chaos to ensue, and one of the last things on the minds of most of those involved would have been the registration of deceased aircraft or the return of data to the BTS.

[DulceDecorum]

132. Those planes REMAIN registered

because the FAA has no reason to strike them from the register.

other planes remain registered for the same reason.
And THOSE planes are ALIVE.

[Lithos]

138. Dulce

The planes retain a permanent registration number forever, even if they are later deemed non-airworthy. To unregister them would destroy one of the attributes used to link data and possibly confusion as they could conceivably be reassigned. The registration number is a key field for all maintenance and operational reports.

L-

[RH]

144. It is a question of interpretation.

part (b) of Sec. 47.41 - Duration and return of Certificate.

states that:

(b) The Certificate of Aircraft Registration, with the reverse side completed, must be returned to the FAA Aircraft Registry --

(1) .... by the person who was the owner of the aircraft before foreign registration;

(2) ..... by the administrator or executor of his estate, or by his heir-at-law if no administrator or executor has been or is to be appointed; or

(3) ...... by the holder of the Certificate of Aircraft Registration in all other cases mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section.



(I edit the text of the three subsections to emphasize my point)

The provisions appear to me to be intended to define who is responsible to return a certificate, rather than the extent of their responsibility.

Please note for instance that the part relevant to our context, number (3), defines a "holder" while part (1) defines the "owner" as the responsible person.

It is therefore imperative, may I suggest, to correctly understand the difference, in which case the regulations have to be seen within the wider context of the force of the Laws that the regulations form a sub set of.

While I am not an expert on American Law, may I at least be allowed to contend that this argument stands good as a matter of common sense?

[Lithos]

145. I am sure that while the issue is under investigation

First there are two types of registration involved. The first is the registration of an airplane and the second is the registration of ownership. What Dulce is talking about is that UA and AA are still considered owners of the planes, the actual registration of the plane in the database is actually never deleted.

The FAA can't delete the number from the database because it serves not only as a tracking number for operational reports, but also for scrap/salvaged equipment. Yes, they do salvage equipment not only from decommisssioned aircraft, but also planes which have crashed.

I personally can easily understand the situation given the large scale investigation, the known association with criminal activity and the scrutiny.

Lest this seem strange, I also note that it took a year to deregister the owner of Flight 800 (N93119)(though the number is still assigned) Flight 800 (N93119) owing to the investigations involved.

L-

[DulceDecorum]

153. I really don't agree.

Take for instance the case of one well known golfer by the name of Arnold Palmer.

Arnold Palmer has amassed over 18,000 hours of flight time and has even had a regional airport named after him. He likes to fly himself to golf tournaments. He has owned several Cessnas over the years.

Arnold Palmer owns the N-number N1AP.
The N-number is the same exact thing as a registration number.

Whenever Arnold gets a new plane, he registers the new plane under his own personal N-number. Then I guess he sells the old one to someone who registers it under another N-number.

If you look up the N-number N1AP
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=1AP
you will get the particulars of Arnold's current Cessna.

As for the old Cessnas,
you will see no trace of them on that particular FAA web-page,
but there are other ways one could pull that info up if one was so inclined.

Lithos brought up the question of ownership.
In the case of the still-registered September 11 planes,
United Airlines is the owner.
HOWEVER,
Both planes were financed and have liens on them.
And United doesn't seem to know who in tarnation it owes money to or for what, exactly.

Since United appears to be somewhat miffed at being left holding the baby, it has sued in bankruptcy court to discover the true identities of its creditors. These trustee relationships are killing United. If you enjoy wending your way through labyrinths, try figuring out the the relationship between UAL Corp and State Street Bank of Connecticut.
However,
this does not alter the fact that United IS the owner
and operator
of those aircraft
until the day after it collapses and its assets are liquidated.

In the case of the two de-registered September 11 planes,
American Airlines was NOT the owner.
the planes were leased.
The owner is someone who has a trust with either
First Union National Bank
or the Wilmington Trust Company.

MercutioATC says that the lady on the phone told him that the FAA does not remove aircraft from the register without cause. In most instances, the owner contacts the FAA and returns the Certificate of Aircraft Registration with the back properly filled out.
The FAA then records the removal after ascertaining the validity of the information so presented.
It would be really interesting to know exactly when those AA leases expired. Methinks they expired exactly five years to the day after a certain pilot received two FAA credentials to possibly fly one plane in.

In the case of Flight 800,
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=93119
it appears that the N-number has been retired.
I say that because the purge date is given as 99/99/9999.
Also the party reserving that N-number,
SAFE FLIGHT 21,
is closely affiliated with the FAA.
http://www.faa.gov/and/and500/510/510-mission.html

Incidentally,
if anyone from the FAA or NTSB is investigating 911, we are not aware of it. Every federal agency appears to be skirting this entire matter and insisting that any and all questions be addressed solely to the FBI.
Nobody wants any part of it. Nobody at all.

[RH]

162. Would you want

to have to answer questions from two or more separate investigative agencies?

With a criminal case it is perfectly in order for other agencies to be superceded by the FBI.

[DulceDecorum]

172. British law is completely different from US law.

And you are thinking in British.

A defendant has to answer questions
from whoever the heck asks him the questions
if they are a law enforcement officer.

It is COMMON in the US
for a person to be charged
FOR THE SAME OFFENSE
under STATE law
AND under FEDERAL law.

And sometimes,
if the defendant drove through a bunch of states before reaching his final destination
and committing the crime
THOSE OTHER STATES CAN CHARGE HIM TOO.
So a chap can be charged for kidnapping in New York,
giving alcohol to a minor in Connecticut
crossing a state line to flee justice in Massachusetts
and murder in Rhode island.
Then the Feds get in with RICO and some interstate commerce stuff.

And ain't NOBODY
give one freshly baked damn
or one badly mutilated rat's ass
as to whether or not the defendant
WANTS
"to have to answer questions from two or more separate investigative agencies."

[RH]

187. There is a big difference

There is no written British Constitution.

So what about your Fifth Amendemnt?

e.g. this little phrase:

"...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."

[MercutioATC]

209. Actually, DD is correct about N1AP.

I worked Arnie's plane for years, and I've seen a few of them. Whichever plane it is, it's always N1AP.

[DulceDecorum]

193. Lithos,

with all due respect,
the registrations do NOT remain the same for the same plane.
The registration numbers ARE reassigned.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm

Observe the definition of the term
N-Numbers.
The nationality and registration markings of U.S. registered aircraft.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/definitions.asp

The FAA webpage lists the registration number prefixes by nationality.
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/CNT/4-2.htm

Each nation has its own code which it puts in front of the registration number of any and all planes which are registered to fly by that particular nation's civil aviation authority. This is in accordance with the

Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft
http://www.jurisint.org/pub/01/en/doc/201_1.htm

You see,
companies from different countries buy and sell aircraft. For example, Boeing may sell a plane to Qantas.

Planes also routinely fly to and from different countries.
For example, British Airways may fly to New York.
Since everyone wants to make sure that the planes are safe, they all sat down and came up with the
Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft
http://www.jurisint.org/pub/01/en/doc/201_1.htm

You will recall the section of the law currently under review:

THIS DATA CURRENT AS OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER DATED MARCH 13, 2003
14 CFR
Aeronautics and Space
CHAPTER I
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SUBCHAPTER C -- AIRCRAFT
PART 47 -- AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION
§47.41 Duration and return of Certificate.
(a) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA under this subpart is effective, unless suspended or revoked, until the date upon which --
(1) Subject to the Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft when applicable, the aircraft is registered under the laws of a foreign country;
http://www.aviationtraining.com/otcgi/cfr/otfilter-21.htm

This section of law is the US Federal law
which was drafted to and is upheld
as part of the obligation of the US under international law.
In other words, if the FAA does NOT uphold this section of law,
the the US is guilty of violating
the Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft.

In any case,
if United Airlines (based in the US)
sells a plane to Virgin Airlines,(based in the UK)
then the registration MUST change.
Th new number will start with a capital G since the international registration number prefix for the UK (Britain) is G.
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/CNT/4-2.htm

In the US, airlines often go out of business.
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Commercial_Aviation/Bankruptcy/Tran9.htm
The planes are sold and they are re-registered.
Take for example the now notorious N4610.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=4610

83-4610/4617 Boeing C-22B Ex-commercial 727-100 operated by ANG 4610 (c/n 18811) was formerly B-727-035 N4610 of National Airlines. National merged with Pan American and aircraft named 'Clipper Pathfinder'. Purchased by USAF Aug 21, 1984. Sold Jan 11, 2002 to Dodson International Parts, inc and then to Dodson Aviation Jan 14, 2002. Registered to Dodson Aviation as N4610. Seized by Zimbawean authorities for carrying suspected mercenaries and military equipment. Dodson supposedly had sold the plane to a South African company, Logo Ltd.
http://www.newsfollowup.com/mercenarygate.htm
Scroll way down.

Lithos,
the most curious thing about this particular plane is that
its N-number AFTER the ANG sold it,
was exactly the same as it was BEFORE the ANG acquired it.
That almost never happens.
2002 - 1984 = 18 years.

[MercutioATC]

102. That's not an argument, it's a fantasy.

So United didn't file paperwork because the planes didn't crash? You DO realize that admitting the planes didn't crash opens them up to criminal prosecution for fraud, don't you?

Even if the planes DIDN'T crash, why wouldn't United say they did (since that's the "official story" anyway) to cover their asses?

United didn't neglect to file paperwork because the planes are in the air...that's just silly.

Simply put, why would United lie to the American public and their insurers and not lie to the FAA to protect themselves?

[RH]

104. neglect?

There may well have been a lot more to it than sheer neglect.

If the legal status of United was subsidiary to the actual deed owners of the aircraft the matter of registration was possibly out of their hands because of the demise of the aircraft. Possibly nobody knew who the hell the duty should then belong to.

As I wrote before: In most administrative set ups the usual reason for a step not to be taken is that everybody thinks it is everybody else's job to do so.

[DulceDecorum]

106. Huh?

All I knows is that
the FAA has paperwork
which was filed when the aircraft were first registered.

United Airlines has the same paperwork.
As does the Jones Act trustee (who is probably State Street of CT).
In between the three of them,
those planes REMAIN registered.

So either the law is being upheld,
or it is NOT being upheld.
MercutioATC claims to have contacted the FAA.
MercutioATC claims that he was informed that the law IS being upheld.
That being so,
the planes are alive.

Please note.
Planes have crashed before (and since) September 11, 2001.
Totalled planes have been removed from the FAA register.
N591UA and N612UA have NOT been removed from the FAA register.
http://www.bartleby.com/59/6/reportsofmyd.html

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RH]

114. How do you know

that United Airlines has the same paperwork? Previous incidents were not usually criminal. Do you know that none of this was affected by the FBI investigation? Criminal law presumably supercedes.

Any person who knows of a violation of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act relating to the transportation or shipment by air of hazardous materials, the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 as amended by the Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987, or any rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder, should report it to appropriate personnel of any FAA regional or district office.

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part13-1-FAR.shtml

I wonder what they had to say about it when the violation was reported. Did they report the fraud to the FBI? Or should one rather refer this directly to the FBI?

In this there is no sense of context, priority or perpective. What about examining laws that apply to the conduct of an autopsy? Obsessive selectivity ruins any hope to appear to be objective.

[DulceDecorum]

120. cuz United filed it with the FAA

That how they got listed as OWNER.

And you are quite right in your own analysis of your own argument:
In this there is no sense of context, priority or perpective. What about examining laws that apply to the conduct of an autopsy? Obsessive selectivity ruins any hope to appear to be objective.

[RH]

123. That was an an analysis of YOUR argument.

Obviously enough!

The data context is 1996, when the planes were registered.
We're talking about 2001.
The priorities in 1996 were presumably not the same as those in 2001.

The perspective would also be extremely different. There were some other things to be concerned about after 9/11.

YOUR present priority may be databases and registrations.

I seriously doubt that after 9/11 it was the priority of the owners of the aircraft and the friends and relatives of dead victims.

:eyes:

[DulceDecorum]

133. Has AVIATION LAW changed since 1996?

And if so, HOW?
The planes qualified for registration in 1996
and they are STILL qualified for registration in 2004.

Were this not so,
they would have been stricken from the register.

THOSE PLANES ARE STILL REGISTERED.
And they are going to STAY that way.

[RH]

124. how they got listed as OWNER.

is very much the question, if there is any substance at all to this extract from a previous posting:

As far as I have been able to determine,
United Airlines operates/operated them
under a financing agreement
apparently held by State Street Bank and Trust Co of Connecticut.
State Street does NOT own the planes
and neither does United Airlines.
State Street is simply holding the titles in trust
for the foreign owner
who has so far been nameless.

[DulceDecorum]

135. Well it IS nice to know

that although Risingup.com has been removed as an authority on aviation,
DulceDecorum remains unimpeached.

The FAA has a website where it lists planes according to N-number.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNum_inquiry.asp
If you go there and type in the N-number of your choice,
information about the registration of that plane will come up on your screen.

Do go have a look, old boy.
And if you don't like what you see,
there is an address at the bottom of the page you can write to.

[RH]

139. You'd made your point

and it had already been responded to.

Beware that pride cometh before the fall, the fall that comes from the dizziness of going around and around just once too often. I was trying to move on.

If you would but be content to argue that there is something here to look into I'd be with you.

The notion that you've proved beyond doubt the continued existence of the aircraft is, frankly, too silly to be bothered with.

[DulceDecorum]

And speaking of silliness

If you purchase an aircraft, you must apply for a Certificate of Aircraft Registration from the Civil Aviation Registry before it may be operated. Do not depend on a bank, loan company, aircraft dealer, or anyone else to submit the application for registration. Do it yourself (in the name of the owner, not in the name of the bank or other mortgage company).
http://registry.faa.gov/faqac.asp

The folks at the FAA allowed United Airlines to register
N591UA aka Flight 93 and
N612UA aka Flight 175.

United Airlines registered as OWNER.
United Airlines is required to return the Certificate of Aircraft Registration once the planes are totally destroyed or scrapped.
United Airlines has NOT done so.
Why?
Those planes are STILL REGISTERED.
Alongside all the other planes which are STILL ALIVE.

[RH]

168. The "holder"

is apparently nominated to return a certificate.

You have not convinced me that UA was the pertinent holder; you merely appear to assume it. Nor have you shown any evidence to show that any plane is "still alive", you merely assert it.

Nor did I notice anything about any obligation to return a certificate immediately. Does any provision impose a time frame? I see no reason yet to believe that the holder never will return a certificate.

My mother died last month. There was nevertheless no obligation for anybody to return her birth certificate.

[DulceDecorum]

174. Which is why

RH is not employed by Interpol.

The FAA website states clearly that United Airlines is the owner.
But that is not good enough for RH.
The Code of Federal Regulations clearly spells out the law,
but that ain't good enough for the posse.
Federal Aviation Regulation Sec. 47.41 clearly outlines the circumstances under which the Certificate of Aircraft Registration is to be returned as no longer valid but that is certainly not up to the standards of those-that-shall-be-known-as-them.

As for your dearly departed,
condolences old boy.
If she had pegged it in the states,
there would not be any talk of returning a birth certificate.
They would have simply issued a death certificate,
once they saw her corpse
and made sure it was her and not someone else.
Which is why we all cannot understand
WHY
united Airlines is behaving as if its planes are STILL ALIVE.

[seatnineb]

129. United corruption..........

Merc says.......
"You really believe that United hasn't filed paperwork because they're "upholding the law" even though (if your theory is true) they've lied to the government and made false insurance claims?"

Yup!
Bang on Merc me ol'chum!

This is United Airlines you are talking about here.........

The combination of United Airlines and FAA corruption insured the continuation of the corrupt culture that prevented the federal government from carrying out its air safety responsibilities

Because of the highly explosive nature of this relationship, and the duplicity of cover-ups by members of Congress, Justice Department lawyers, federal judges, among others, this relationship will never be revealed to the American public--insuring a continuation of tragedies and insuring the protection of the guilty
http://www.unfriendlyskies.com/victims_corruption_ual.html


And Merc.....
Dont bother with the proverbial "That story is 40 years old" rebuttal.......

Once bitten forever smitten........

The F.A.A, The N.T.S.B, The C.I.A and United Airlines have been smitten for a long time.........

9/11 is just the latest episode.

[MercutioATC]

164. Read some of the other posts here, seatnenib...WHY would United

open itself to criminal prosecution by flying the planes?

IF they're still flying the planes, they're complicit to murder in that they know the "offocial story" is false (a story that explained the death of thgousands of Americans). Why would they make themselves vulnerable to this simply to comply with an administrative regulation?

Corruption exists for a reason - gain. What is there to gain here?

[seatnineb]

195. United Airlines are in Violation of federal law.........one way or another

O.K Merc.....

You win.

Lets play it your way........

United Airlines flight 175 crashes on 9/11/01 at 9:03am into the South Tower.....

So....

These individuals of United Airlines(to whom the deed of invalidating the registration pertain)run the risk of incurring a fine or imprisonment according to the............... .

Aircraft Registration in the United States of America is prescribed under section 501 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1401), and is published as Part 47 – Aircraft Registration of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Federal Aircraft Regulations (the FAR). Violation of the FAR is a federal offense and punishable by both fine and imprisonment.
www.agcorp.com/lba_us.asp

And this is the same United Airlines that is simultaneously filing for a chapter 11 bankruptcy!(the largest in aviation history).

One way or another......
United Airlines is breaking the law.

The F.A.A is just as guilty for not enforcing the law.

And they are not being punished for it.

Nothing to see here folks......

Move along.

[MercutioATC]

196. My point exactly...nothing to see here.

United is "breaking" a regulation that's never enforced (to the best of my knowledge).

The database is still not proof that planes (United's or anybody's) are still flying.

As I said before, show me an inspection entry on one of those planes after 9/11. THAT'D constitute something to look into.

[RH]

197. Or at least

can anybody show us entry in the BTS database whereby a flight is recorded of an aircraft that is supposed to have been destroyed.

That would be something to have to explain. A missing entry is not so remarkable.

[seatnineb]

205. No Merc.....You move along.........

Cos me and the other diligent folks here are gonna "see" and NOT "move along" until the following.........


9-11-01 Latest News
Terrorist Attack News
Calisuri @ 9:45 am EST
Red Cross appeals for blood: 1-800-448-3543
9:41am(9/11/01) PT

Unconfirmed:
The second flight was not a regular plane, but there were no windows on the side, which means it was not a passanger jet.

United Flight 175 is missing (Boston to LA)
http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1000215900 .


...recieves a rebuttal other than than the pathetic "early reports are never reliable".

You really wanna know what kind of plane hit the South Tower at 9:03am
on 9/11/01?

Just ask these guys to show us a close up.........

Daley, who was flying over ground zero in New York City on September 11, showed the audience a gripping video taken in the cabin of his NYPD Bell 412 during the attacks. At one point, his helicopter WAS ABOUT 150 FEET from the hijacked Boeing 767; indeed, the commandeered commercial airliner DOVE TO AVOID Daley's helicopter.


http://www.defensedaily.com/sar2001/wrap3.htm

Lets see you ring the NYPD to ask for this all important video evidence.

[RH]

206. ............

:boring:

[MercutioATC]

207. You DID see the word "unconfirmed" in front of that, right?

There has been ONE unconfirmed report that the jet didn't have windows. ONE. There's been NO followup...no explanation of where the viewer was in relation to the plane...no word at all from this supposed eyewitness.

In case you missed the subject post, this thread is about the FAA database registration issue, not windowless planes. I responded to a question about the registration process with my "move along, nothing to see here" comment. That statement was meant specifically for the registration issue.

You're the only one here talking about windowless jets.

[seatnineb]

210. keep running Merc..........

The F.A.A registry indicates that N612UA aka Flight 175 is still airworthy and thus did not crash on 9/11/01.

The report below from the morning of 9/11/01 itself indicates that a plane other than Flight 175 impacted the South Tower at 9:03am.

I know that this report is just music to your ears!

9-11-01 Latest News
Terrorist Attack News
Calisuri @ 9:45 am EST
Red Cross appeals for blood: 1-800-448-3543
9:41am(9/11/01) PT

Unconfirmed:
The second flight was not a regular plane, but there were no windows on the side, which means it was not a passanger jet.

http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1000215900 .

Still waiting for a credible debunk...........

[MercutioATC]

211. Running from what? You haven't given me anything to rebut...

We now all know that a listing in the FAA database does NOT mean a plane is still airworthy.

The only other "evidence" you offer is a single eyewitness report that's unconfirmed. None of the other eyetnesses reported not seeing windows and there's no description of the viewer's position in relation to the plane.

Does this 767 have windows?

http://www.photovault.com/Link/Technology/Aviation_Commercial/show.asp?tg=TAFVolume16/TAFV16P09_09

I don't see any....

[RH]

212. I see a lot of airliners

go by overhead.

Once I noticed a 737 going into land but with wheels lowered under one wing only. That sort of thing is easy enough to notice from a good position. The wheels can be seen against the sky, much the same as any extra pod under a plane would easily be seen, immediately. It is also possible to identify airliners just from their outline. The drooped nose and elongated fuselage of a B757 may be spotted at a glance. Windows are not so easy to see, from any angle.

[seatnineb]

213. NYPD can give a definite answer.

Mark Burnback of Fox News did not see these windows Merc........



You can clearly see that N612UA did have windows.

Got any photos to prove that whatever hit the South Tower also had windows?

I dont think so.

As I said before ........

Ask the NYPD!

Next.

[MercutioATC]

214. A "definite answer"? Is that why the report is "unconfirmed"?

We obviously have different standards of proof. I'm not willing to build a theory on the uncorroborated report of ONE eyewitness, especially when there's no way of of knowing the angle from which he was viewing the plane.

If that standard works for you, though, that's great. It must make it easier to support alien abduction and bigfoot stories....

[DulceDecorum]

215. Gotcha

MercutioATC says:
We obviously have different standards of proof. I'm not willing to build a theory on the uncorroborated report of ONE eyewitness, .....

http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2001/foxnews091401.html

[Bolo Boffin]

216. Two people called from Flight 77, Dulce

Thanks for playing.

[DulceDecorum]

217. Ask not

what thy Harpy has done for thee lately,
but how you can defend thy Barby.

[MercutioATC]

218. "Gotcha"? We were talking about windows, not cell phone calls.

Where did THAT come from?????

If you're going to exclaim "Gotcha", you could at least TRY to stick to the subject at hand.

[RH]

101. It is not necessarily so simple.

A registration belongs to the owner of an aircraft and the pertinent definition of an owner apparently in turn includes
"a buyer in possession, a bailee, or a lessee of an aircraft under a contract of conditional sale, and the assignee of that person."

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/janqtr/14cfr47.5.htm

So what exactly happens with respect to ownership when a plane is totally destroyed, when there is thus no plane to own?

One thing that would possibly happen is that a buyer in possession would see fit to adjust the terms of an assignment to an operating airline, or it may also be the case that a contractual issue arises, that in turn affects the duty to attend to the aeronautic registration.

So would you then think, perhaps, that in the unprecendented instance of an air disaster that was alledgedly not an accident, the resultant legal issues may be somewhat complex?

"I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams."

(Hamlet: Act II, Scene II)

[DulceDecorum]

107. Let's see if I got this correct

RH is saying that if a plane crashes and is completely destroyed and there is nothing left,
then the owner does not own anything any more and so he just shuts up and moves along?

Hands up those of you who buy that story.

[RH]

113. Not correct.

That is simply not what I said.

I posed a question. A question is not a story.

What exactly happens with respect to ownership when a plane is totally destroyed, when there is thus no plane to own?

[DulceDecorum]

116. RH asks:

What exactly happens with respect to ownership when a plane is totally destroyed, when there is thus no plane to own?

Sec. 47.41 - Duration and return of Certificate.
a) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA under this subpart is effective, unless suspended or revoked,
UNTIL THE DATE UPON WHICH --
(3) The aircraft is totally destroyed or scrapped;

(b) The Certificate of Aircraft Registration, with the reverse side completed, must be returned to the FAA Aircraft Registry --
3) Upon the termination of the registration, by the holder of the Certificate of Aircraft Registration in all other cases mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section.
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part47-41-FAR.shtml

No plane -- no registration.

You can confirm this with United Airlines.
Follow the example set by MercutioATC.
Call them.
Or, since you claim to be in the UK,
e-mail them.
http://www.hoovers.com/ual/--ID__11520--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml

[RH]

122. The rule is the rule.

What happens is what happens.

With respect to ownership the moot issue is which person the rule applies to in practice, not what the rule is. From what I can make of it the ownership in terms of the registration responsiblity may fall either to a freehold owner, a lessee, an airline operator, or anybody else if they be suitably appointed, the matter being for them to sort out between themselves, not something for the aviation authority to determine.

Hence the question: What exactly happens? Or more to the point, what exactly happened with respect to ownership?

Given that insurances and other liabilities were also owned I am not at all surprised if it was a dodgy, buck passing affair.

[DulceDecorum]

131. And the planes are STILL REGISTERED

in accordance to the FACTS and the LAW.

[MercutioATC]

165. Yes, but they're not FLYING. In fact, they've crashed.

We've demonstrated that a registration remains valid until the holder files paperwork to have it removed. We've demonstrated that the FAA won't remove a registration from the database unless that paperwork is filed.

Therefore, the ONLY direct implication of the fact that the registrations are still valid is that the paperwork hasn't been filed and processed by the FAA. Anything else is pure conjecture.

[DulceDecorum]

171. It aint over

till its over.

The planes are STILL REGISTERED.
And your phone bunny told you that they will stay that way.

United does not file paperwork for planes that have not crashed.
Why do you want it to file such paperwork for N591UA and/or N612UA?

And why don't you call them?
You called the FAA.
Why not United Airlines?

Hee hee.

[MercutioATC]

173. With some people, it's NEVER over.

Some people just refuse to view available facts in a logical manner.

Why haven't you answered my question about United's "decision" to be an accessory to murder so it didn't violate an administrative paperwork regulation? We've obviously moved off of the original topic (BIG surprise there :eyes: ) and have moved on to United's reluctance to break the law. Just give me a response that makes sense. Anything. Please.

To be perfectly clear, here's where your logic hole exists:



You claim that "United does not file paperwork for planes that have not crashed." That's true.

That does NOT mean, however, that United will necessarily file paperwork for planes that HAVE crashed (which is the real issue here). We're not concerned about what United does when planes DON'T crash, we're interested in what they did about N591UA and/or N612UA.

I'm just asking you to justify your "proof" that N591UA and/or N612UA are still "alive". The database entries obviously don't cut it.

[DulceDecorum]

180. And Now for Something Completely Different.

The Dead Collector : Bring out yer dead.

Large Man with Dead Body : Here's one.
The Dead Collector : That'll be ninepence.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't : I'm not dead.
The Dead Collector : What?
Large Man with Dead Body : Nothing. There's your ninepence.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't : I'm not dead.
The Dead Collector : 'Ere, he says he's not dead.
Large Man with Dead Body : Yes he is.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't : I'm not.
The Dead Collector : He isn't.
Large Man with Dead Body : Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't : I'm getting better.
Large Man with Dead Body : No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
The Dead Collector : Well, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't : I don't want to go on the cart.
Large Man with Dead Body : Oh, don't be such a baby.
The Dead Collector : I can't take him.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't : I feel fine.
Large Man with Dead Body : Oh, do me a favor.
The Dead Collector : I can't.
Large Man with Dead Body : Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
The Dead Collector : I promised I'd be at the Robinsons'. They've lost nine today. Large Man with Dead Body : Well, when's your next round?
The Dead Collector : Thursday.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't : I think I'll go for a walk.
Large Man with Dead Body : You're not fooling anyone, you know. Isn't there anything you could do?
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't : I feel happy. I feel happy.
(The Dead Collector glances up and down the street furtively, then silences the Body with his a whack of his club)
Large Man with Dead Body : Ah, thank you very much.
The Dead Collector : Not at all. See you on Thursday.
Large Man with Dead Body : Right.

-- Monty Python.

[MercutioATC]

181. That's at least humorous. Not pertinent to the discussion, but humorous.

I DO appreciate Monty Python.

[DulceDecorum]

184. Condi Rice has the same difficulty

in connecting the dots.

[MercutioATC]

191. ...and Bush has the same difficulty

in expressing himself in an intelligent, concise manner.

Which brings to mind another Python qoute.."You're a loony".

[DulceDecorum]

202. You really shouldn't

compare yourself to the pretzledent, MercutioATC.
Don't sell yourself THAT short.

Shopkeeper:
You must be a loony.
Customer:
I am not a loony! Why should I be tied with the epithet loony merely because I have a pet halibut? I've heard tell that Sir Gerald Nabardo has a pet prawn called Simon and you wouldn't call him a loony; furthermore, Dawn Pailthorpe, the lady show-jumper, had a clam, called Stafford, after the late Chancellor, Allan Bullock has two pikes, both called Chris, and Marcel Proust had an haddock! So, if you're calling the author of 'A la recherche du temps perdu' a loony, I shall have to ask you to step outside!

Aaah yes.
You know, American humor is so much more direct.
Take Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, for example.
He had a right dust-up with eminem once, simply because he was too forthright. Triumph goes around saying things like
"I see you have started a thread called --
The FAA Civil Aviation Registry Database myth put to rest (finally).
Good. Very good.
For me to poop on."

It is really quite funny to most Americans you know.
They tend to agree with Triumph on a lot of matters.
That he poops on.

But British humor is filled with subtleties.
Except for when they involve the French.
The French are somewhat out of vogue in the US at present.



Something to do with that Liberté! Egalité! Fraternité stuff
they feel that people in Iraq should have.
Which brings us to another most excellent Monty Python quote,
You remember this one, MercutioATC:
French Soldier : I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

Hahaha.
As Larry the Cable guy says:
"Now that's funny I don't care who you are... that's funny!"
Hey RH, are you into Monty Python as well?

(The Black Knight continues to threaten Arthur despite getting both his arms and one of his legs cut off)
Black Knight : Right, I'll do you for that!
King Arthur : You'll what?
Black Knight : Come here!
King Arthur : What are you gonna do, bleed on me?
Black Knight : I'm invincible!
King Arthur : ...You're a loony.

Was that not a classic?
Aaaah, those loonies.
What were we talking about?
Oh yes,
the phone bunny who confirmed Section 47:41.
And, of course, Monty Python:

Tim the Enchanter : There he is!
King Arthur : Where?
Tim the Enchanter : There!
King Arthur : What? Behind the rabbit?
Tim the Enchanter : It IS the rabbit!
King Arthur : You silly sod!
Tim the Enchanter : What?
King Arthur : You got us all worked up!
Tim the Enchanter : Well, that's no ordinary rabbit.
King Arthur : Ohh.
Tim the Enchanter : That's the most foul, cruel, and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on!
Sir Robin : You tit! I soiled my armor I was so scared!
Tim the Enchanter : Look, that rabbit's got a vicious streak a mile wide! It's a killer!
Sir Galahad : Get stuffed!
Tim the Enchanter : He'll do you up a treat, mate.
Sir Galahad : Oh yeah?
Sir Robin : You mangy Scots git!
Tim the Enchanter : I'm warning you!
Sir Robin : What's he do? Nibble your bum?
Tim the Enchanter : He's got huge, sharp-- eh-- he can leap about-- look at the bones!
King Arthur : Go on, Bors. Chop his head off!
Bors: Right! Silly little bleeder. One rabbit stew comin' right up!
......(after Bors is killed by the killer rabbit)
Tim the Enchanter : I WARNED you, but did you listen to me? Oh, no, you know, didn't you? Oh, it's just a harmless little BUNNY, isn't it?



But to get return to what you were saying MercuioATC,
Bush (like his flunkies) does indeed have difficulty
in expressing himself in an intelligent, concise manner,
which is why this particular adventure qualifies as a
MISERABLE FAILURE.

[MercutioATC]

208. Nice Python quotes. Doesn't speak to the issue, however.

:eyes:

[tngledwebb]

126. Sounds logical enough..

It would save a lot of paperwork. Would that apply to anyone who wanted to burn up their old car or drive it into the ocean? That would save a lot of money and paperwork too. PS: Remember to always use a row of tinfoil hat smilies every time you respond to certain posters. It adds a certain ineffable sarcastic gravitas.

[RH]

112. risingup.com is not the law.

Their caveat, at the bottom of the page is not at all ambiguous in that respect:

"The data contained in this page is intended only as a research aid and is not authoritative or official. Not responsible for incorrect data or damage caused by the use of the data on this page. Please view the privacy and legal statement for this site."


:spank:

[DulceDecorum]

119. .... but the quotes on that page ARE.

14 CFR
Aeronautics and Space
CHAPTER I
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SUBCHAPTER C -- AIRCRAFT
PART 47 -- AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION
§47.41 Duration and return of Certificate.

Do try to keep up.
Risingup.com is simply making the Code of Federal Regulations available to the general public.

[RH]

125. Legal Statement

RISINGUP AVIATION RESOURCES AND/OR ITS RESPECTIVE SUPPLIERS OR PARTNERS MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE SUITABILITY OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE DOCUMENTS AND RELATED GRAPHICS AND/OR DATABASES PUBLISHED ON THIS SERVER FOR ANY PURPOSE. ALL SUCH DOCUMENTS AND RELATED GRAPHICS AND DATABASES ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE. THE ENTIRE RISK ARISING OUT OF THEIR USE REMAINS WITH THE RECIPIENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL RISINGUP AVIATION RESOURCES AND/OR ITS RESPECTIVE SUPPLIERS OR PARTNERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE OR OTHER DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, OR LOSS OF BUSINESS INFORMATION), EVEN IF RISINGUP AVIATION RESOURCES HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

http://www.risingup.com/pl.shtml

[DulceDecorum]

130. No such thing as

14 CFR
Aeronautics and Space
CHAPTER I
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SUBCHAPTER C -- AIRCRAFT
PART 47 -- AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION
§47.41 Duration and return of Certificate.

Happy now RH?

[RH]

140. The other link you supplied should be more reliable.

Once bitten twice shy. On past occassions I have foolishly relied upon the versions of the Statutes and sundry Instruments of the UK Parliament to be found in local Public Libraries whose records one would hope were up to date. Please believe me, that is not absolutely so. Or did you think that purveyors of information print disclaimer caveats just for the fun of it?

If there is one thing to be learned from your delving it is surely that the archives are not absolutely reliable. How many other aircraft were missing as if not scheduled from the BTS database on 9/11? Did you take that into consideration? You may be surprised.

[DulceDecorum]

143. Once bitten twice shy

http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/fool_me.htm

And the UA planes remain listed.
And the AA planes were destroyed and removed
from the US Civil Aviation registry on January 14, 2002
in accordance to US law.

That's all she wrote.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DulceDecorum]

98. The Big Lie

It must have come to your notice by now,
that Bush has been running negative ads about
Our Candidate for President.

While a few details and dates of Kerry's Vietnam record are open to question, most of the accusations are laughable. Kerry's record of service in Vietnam is clear and, one would think, unassailable. Given the contrast in their Vietnam-era records -- Bush even let his pilot's license lapse while still in the Guard -- Bush might be expected to change the subject.
Yet the Kerry opponents, working with funders and political operatives closely linked to Bush personally, are attempting what is known in politics as the big lie -- an effort simply to contradict the truth repeatedly.
Both parties do it, but Republicans are developing a shocking expertise. The smearing of John McCain in South Carolina in 2000, the reprehensible attack to oust Senator Max Cleland of Georgia in 2002, and this utterly cynical campaign against Kerry by Bush's False Squad deserve only condemnation.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/08/22/big_lies_for_bush/

Read that strategery bit again.
Slowly.
....political operatives closely linked to Bush personally, are attempting what is known in politics as the big lie -- an effort simply to contradict the truth repeatedly.

But what does this have to do with 911?

So the 9/11 commission has merely confirmed what those without naiveté had suspected all along: the Bush administration lied and misled America into a needless imperial pet project that has killed thousands of innocent Iraqis and hundreds of U.S. military personnel. The amazing part is that the administration continues to claim that its Goebbels-like “big lie” propaganda is true after all, no matter how much evidence amasses to the contrary.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1319

What was that last sentence?
The amazing part is that the administration continues to claim that its Goebbels-like “big lie” propaganda is true after all, no matter how much evidence amasses to the contrary.

So,
no matter how much evidence amasses to the contrary,
some people persist in the propagation of
THE BIG LIE: - an effort simply to contradict the truth repeatedly.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

[MercutioATC]

128. Yes, that definition of "The Big Lie" seems accurate...

"THE BIG LIE: - an effort simply to contradict the truth repeatedly."

Hmmmm....now where have I seen the truth contradicted repeatedly recently???

[DulceDecorum]

136. THE BIG LIE: - an effort simply to contradict the truth repeatedly

MercutioATC says:
97. Yes, those are the FACTS. Your CONCLUSON is flawed.

MercutioATC asks:
Hmmmm....now where have I seen the truth contradicted repeatedly recently???



If you wanna make the world a better place
(If you wanna make the world a better place)
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change
-- Michael Jackson

[MercutioATC]

147. At least I'M making sense...

I'm not suggesting that United would leave itself open to criminal fraud charges just to comply with a seldom-enforced FAA paperwork regulation.

You REALLY have to stop thinking that all laws and regulations carry the same penalty for failure to abide by them (or the same enforcement rate). Speeders are frequently not cited, even when the officer knows they've been speeding. Murderers aren't usually let go in the same circumstance.

Nobody (except you, perhaps) is really worked up about the FAA not hunting down people who don't file their registration removal paperwork and bringing them to justice. It certainly doesn't hold a candle to insurance fraud (not to mention being an accessory to a few thousand murders...)

[DulceDecorum]

149. HELP

I've been looking for this for a while now.

Show me ONE place
where United Airlines has filed OFFICIAL PAPERWORK
stating that the planes N591UA and N612UA have been destroyed.

Press accounts do not count.
Unless Jon Stewart is the guy saying so.
Nobody else is credible.

Present an SEC filing.
Or an FAA filing.
Or ANY filing with a US FEDERAL AGENCY
wherein United Airlines OFFICIALLY states that N591UA and/or N612UA have been destroyed.

And I don't give a fig for "missing."

[MercutioATC]

155. Of course they haven't. That's why they're still active in the database.

That doesn't mean they're still flying, however. It simply means (as you've pointed out) that United hasn't filed paperwork.

[DulceDecorum]

166. BREAKTHROUGH

The gauntlet was thrown down.
A challenge was issued to MercutioATC (and company) in 2004
to come up with ANYTHING that shows that United Airlines has
filed paperwork with ANY federal agency
claiming that N591UA and/or N612UA were destroyed in 2001.

MercutioATC replied:
Of course they haven't. That's why they're still active in the database.

So, despite all that has happened,
United Airlines (according to MercutioATC)
has NOT filed any paperwork whatsoever,
claiming that its planes were destroyed.

So what makes YOU think that they were destroyed?

Oh, THAT.

You gotta stop listening to Boston FBI.
Dan Burton can tell you why,
and he is a Republican.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/25/60minutes/main325595.shtml

[MercutioATC]

169. Yes, BREAKTHROUGH!...of a WTC tower and a field.

THAT'S what makes me believe the planes were destroyed.

Why is this a "breakthrough"? I've never taken issue with what the FAA database said, just with your interpretation of that information. That hasn't changed.

You still haven't answered my repeated questions. Why would United feel it was so important to obey an administrative regulation while violating criminal law?

Your hypothesis just doesn't make sense.

[DulceDecorum]

176. Your hypothesis just doesn't make sense.

MercutioATC says:
You still haven't answered my repeated questions. Why would United feel it was so important to obey an administrative regulation while violating criminal law?

We know what administrative regulation you are talking about.
It is Section 47:41. Duration and return of Certificate.

What criminal law are you talking about?
What's criminal about keeping a perfectly healthy plane on the US Civil register?

[MercutioATC]

178. I've posted it already. Complicity in a murder case.

IF United is still flying those planes, it's complicit in a crime that killed over 3000 people. How could you fail to see this?

[DulceDecorum]

182. Who died?

How did you get over 3,000 deaths?
And HOW did they die
if those planes are still flying?

Show me their bodies,
Or even better,
the wreckage of the planes that ARE NOT
the ones that are STILL REGISTERED.

If United Airlines still has the planes,
then that in itself PROVES that United Airlines had nothing to do with it.
Filing the paperwork makes them an accessory after the fact.
Three whole years after the fact.

Some "hijackers" are still alive.
That in itself PROVES that they had nothing to do with it.
How can you fail to see this?

[MercutioATC]

189. Well, over 3000 who worked in the WTC towers , for starters.

Those people are dead.

A United plane is part of the official explanation for their deaths.

In your scenario, United KNOWS its plane wasn't the cause of those deaths.

That means United has intentionally withheld evidence.

That makes United complicit.

Again, how could you have missed this?

[RH]

192. Explain this.

UNITED AIRLINES ISSUES UPDATE ON STATUS OF FLIGHT OPERATIONS TODAY

UNITED AIRLINES CHAIRMAN AND CEO JIM GOODWIN VISITS SITE OF FLIGHT UA 93 CRASH; PAYS TRIBUTE TO VICTIMS OF TERROR AS PRIVATE MEMORIAL SERVICE TAKES PLACE

CHICAGO, September 17, 2001, 12:15 p.m. CDT

e.g.

"United employees continue to work with the families of those lost on United Flights UA 93 and UA 175, and many other of our employees are closely involved in assisting with the investigation. Those efforts will continue as long as they are needed and I will make available every resource that might be needed to help."

http://www.unitedargentina.com/press/pressroom/2001/us_0912b.html

[DulceDecorum]

198. Why bother?

RH, old boy,
in Post # 149.
I asked for HELP in finding something.

I asked y'all to
Show me ONE place
where United Airlines has filed OFFICIAL PAPERWORK
stating that the planes N591UA and N612UA have been destroyed.
Press accounts do not count.
Unless Jon Stewart is the guy saying so.
Nobody else is credible.
Present an SEC filing.
Or an FAA filing.
Or ANY filing with a US FEDERAL AGENCY
wherein United Airlines OFFICIALLY states that N591UA and/or N612UA have been destroyed.
And I don't give a fig for "missing."

Then you graciously provided a link and
with rapidly diminishing excitement I read this:

Press release
UNITED AIRLINES ISSUES UPDATE ON STATUS OF FLIGHT OPERATIONS TODAY
CHICAGO, September 12, 2001 (11:38 a.m. EST) - United Airlines has just confirmed that it will not begin any scheduled operations until at least 6 p.m. CDT today. Earlier, United had said it would not begin scheduled operations until at least 3 p.m. The company reconfirmed that it still has no plans to operate any originating international flights.....
United Chairman and CEO James E. Goodwin said today, "The thoughts and prayers of all of us at United are with the families and friends of those who were the victims of these unprecedented acts of terrorism. We are making every resource available at our company to assist the authorities with every aspect of the investigation. Yesterday's unprecedented chain of events have been devastating to all of us at United, to our nation and to people around the world."
http://www.unitedargentina.com/press/pressroom/2001/us_0912b.html

Your entry has been place in the circular file.

[RH]

201. Because,

if you can't explain it you're making no sense, as explained by Mercurio.

If you're going to blindly refuse to acknowldege his point this is is going to be a complete waste of time, as if it was ever going to be anything else.

:eyes:

[DulceDecorum]

151. Re: registration paperwork

You have heard of Stewart Payne?

But just in case you haven't
here is a link about the manner in which he died.

Accident No.: DCA00MA005
Operator or Flight Number: Sunjet Aviation
Aircraft and Registration: Learjet Model 35, N47BA
Location: Aberdeen, South Dakota
Date: October 25, 1999
SUMMARY
On October 25, 1999, about 1213 central daylight time (CDT), a Learjet Model 35, N47BA, operated by Sunjet Aviation, Inc., of Sanford, Florida, crashed near Aberdeen, South Dakota. The airplane departed Orlando, Florida, for Dallas, Texas, about 0920 eastern daylight time (EDT). Radio contact with the flight was lost north of Gainesville, Florida, after air traffic control (ATC) cleared the airplane to flight level (FL) 390. The airplane was intercepted by several U.S. Air Force (USAF) and Air National Guard (ANG) aircraft as it proceeded northwestbound. .....
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm

Now, ladies and gentlemen,
creatures from the darkside,
please note that the accident took place on
October 25, 1999.

And now let us check in with the FAA website
and see what it has to say about N47BA.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=47BA

Oh my!
look at the date upon which the registration was issued.
October 25, 1999.
That is the same day that N47AB crashed.
Well, well.
I wonder if Jet Shares One bothered to turn in the Certificate of Aircraft Registration. Funny isn't it, how the NTSB blames Sunjet Aviation for operating the plane when the FAA registration clearly states that Jet Shares One is the owner.

And look, the US Postal Service can't seem to find
the owner who is listed as
JET SHARES ONE INC
3511 SILVERSIDE RD STE 105
WILMINGTON DE 19810-4902

What was that you were saying about record-keeping, MercutioATC?

Saturday, November 13, 1999
Enforcement actions are initiated when the FAA learns of a possible violation of federal regulations.
http://slam.canoe.ca/SlamGolfPayneStewart/nov13_rep.html

Dozens of federal agents conducting a criminal investigation into the jet crash that killed golf champion Payne Stewart seized records and aircraft from the Sanford charter company that operated the deadly flight.
Nearly 50 agents from the FBI, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General swarmed the offices and hangars of SunJet Aviation at Orlando Sanford Airport in a daylong search.
The agencies are investigating "possible violations of federal law pertaining to maintenance and record-keeping and making false statements," said Philip Baiers, an FBI supervisory special agent in the agency's Orlando office.
The agents searched hangars, offices and four of SunJet's eight jet aircraft and carted off numerous boxes of records.
Baiers would not elaborate on the focus of the investigation, or say when the records and aircraft are expected to be released.
<snip>
The federal agents may have been comparing maintenance records of the four aircraft that were seized to the planes themselves, possibly to determine whether the mechanical work documented in the records actually was carried out.
http://www.golftoday.co.uk/news/yeartodate/news00/stewart4.html

A manager with the company that owned the Learjet in which golfer Payne Stewart and five others died in a 1999 crash falsified training records for the pilots, the Federal Aviation Administration said.
This marks the first time the government has publicly accused anyone of wrongdoing in connection with the crash on Oct. 25, 1999. The FBI and Transportation Department are still investigating.
http://www.golftoday.co.uk/news/yeartodate/news01/stewart.html

Oh my!
It looks like the FAA takes this sort of thing rather seriously.

About 1 p.m. ET, the story broke on CNN. Stewart's wife, Tracey, an Australian native, tried to reach her husband on his cellular phone while she followed the drama on television, her brother said.
"She was trying to ring him on his mobile and couldn't raise him. It's just really bad for my sister to be watching it on CNN, knowing that it was her husband on board," Mike Ferguson, a professional golfer, told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.
<snip>
At his home in Mina, S.D., Ken Dunn heard the news of the jet's uncontrolled flight on the radio and stepped onto his front porch, where he saw a Learjet flying high overhead, flanked by two F-16s.
"The one in trouble started flip-flopping, and then it just came straight down," he said. "I knew there was nothing there, just pieces."
Dunn jumped into his Jeep and drove 2 miles to a pasture owned by rancher John Hoffman, where he found "a hole 10 feet deep, 25 feet in diameter. Pieces of aircraft lying around. Pieces of human bodies lying around. And there were no pieces of body bigger than a softball."
He called 911 and told the operator no ambulance would be needed.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/stewart/stewfs14.htm

So sad. Six dead people....

I wonder why the FAA simply can't be bothered to have a look
at United Airlines
and the September 11 planes which are STILL REGISTERED.
Especially since,
BOTH United Airlines planes are ALSO reported to have Undeliverable Triennials.

MercutioATC says:
You REALLY have to stop thinking that all laws and regulations carry the same penalty for failure to abide by them (or the same enforcement rate).

MeructioATC says:
I'm not suggesting that United would leave itself open to criminal fraud charges just to comply with a seldom-enforced FAA paperwork regulation.

MercutioATC says:
At least I'M making sense...

[MercutioATC]

157. Thanks for illustrating my earlier statement!

...when I said "The FAA is more concerned about assuring that flying planes are registered than making sure that registered planes are still flying". The FAA is MUCH more concerned with the registration status (which requires a flightworthiness evaluation) and maintenance records than it is about whether some planes' registrations remain active after they've been grounded (or crashed).

Maintenance and training records aren't "seldom-enforced FAA paperwork regulations". They're taken very seriously by the FAA.

If you don't believe me, I'd ask you (with your obvious command of database research) to see how many enforcement actions were taken by the FAA for training and maintenance issues. Now, see if you can find even ONE instance where the FAA took action against a registration holder for failing to file paperwork to cancel the registration on a grounded/crashed plane.

They're two completely separate issues.

[RH]

160. Double jeopardy

The FAA presumably wouldn't bother to look because the FBI was already on the case.

The same goes for the BTS. They'd look into a case for as long as the issue is administrative. A criminal allegation they'd pass on.

[DulceDecorum]

170. What is a phrase often uttered by Alex Trebek?

The NTSB does not answer to ANYONE
other than Congress
and it can and DOES investigate REGARDLESS of what the FBI does.

(2)
(A) Subject to the requirements of this paragraph, an investigation by the Board under paragraph (1)(A)-(D) or (F) of this subsection has priority over any investigation by another department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government. The Board shall provide for appropriate participation by other departments, agencies, or instrumentalities in the investigation. However, those departments, agencies, or instrumentalities may not participate in the decision of the Board about the probable cause of the accident.
(B) If the Attorney General, in consultation with the Chairman of the Board, determines and notifies the Board that circumstances reasonably indicate that the accident may have been caused by an intentional criminal act, the Board shall relinquish investigative priority to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The relinquishment of investigative priority by the Board shall not otherwise affect the authority of the Board to continue its investigation under this section.
(C) If a Federal law enforcement agency suspects and notifies the Board that an accident being investigated by the Board under subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (1) may have been caused by an intentional criminal act, the Board, in consultation with the law enforcement agency, shall take necessary actions to ensure that evidence of the criminal act is preserved.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/1131.html

In other words,
the NTSB will find out for itself
what caused the demise of the plane.
The FBI can do the criminal prosecution stuff,
but the NTSB is charged with finding out exactly what happened
and how to ensure that it never happens again. And the NTSB gets to keep the evidence.

If a CIVIL plane is involved,
then so is the NTSB.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/1134.html
And even the US MILITARY has to watch itself.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/1132.html

The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent agency with statutory authority to investigate air, rail, highway, pipeline and maritime accidents, and to propose corrective action. The NTSB’s charter in aviation applies to any aircraft accident (major damage or severe injury) in U.S. jurisdiction, but in practice is reserved to civil registry aircraft operating under FARs. Accidents involving only "public use" aircraft (operated by federal/state/local government) are investigated by the respective agencies.
<snip>
For a mishap involving civil and military aircraft, it is conceivable there could be three concurrent investigations: NTSB, Aircraft Mishap Board and JAG Manual. The NTSB investigation would have precedence over the military safety investigation for access to evidence. Procedure for such an investigation is described in OPNAVINST 3750.16_.
http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/aviation/investigations/membersguide/ntsbfaa.htm

There is however,
one instance where the NTSB has no jurisdiction.

Sec. 1131. - General authority
(a) General. -
(1) The National Transportation Safety Board shall investigate or have investigated (in detail the Board prescribes) and establish the facts, circumstances, and cause or probable cause of -
(A) an aircraft accident the Board has authority to investigate under section 1132 of this title or an aircraft accident involving a public aircraft as defined by section 40102(a)(37) of this title other than an aircraft operated by the Armed Forces or by an intelligence agency of the United States;
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/1131.html

At the request of the FBI, the Safety Board has sent investigators with knowledge of aircraft structures and flight recorders to the crash sites in New York, Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon. They are assisting in the search for the cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders - the so-called “black boxes” - and helping to identify aircraft parts.
http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2001/010913.htm

The NTSB had to WAIT FOR A REQUEST
from the FBI
BEFORE
it could assist in the September 11 investigation.



The NTSB had NO JURIDICTION WHATSOEVER over the debris.
Those are FBI agents picking up and moving the evidence.
This is contrary to everything the NTSB stands for.
How was this permitted to happen?

Sec. 1132. - Civil aircraft accident investigations
(a) General Authority. -
(1) The National Transportation Safety Board shall investigate -
(A) EACH ACCIDENTINVOLVING CIVIL AIRCRAFT; AND
(B) with the participation of appropriate military authorities, EACH ACCIDENT INVOLVING BOTH MILITARY AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/1132.html

Yeah,
but the NTSB doesn't investigate the crash of
"an aircraft operated by the Armed Forces
or by an intelligence agency of the United States."
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/cia-simulation.htm

[RH]

190. "investigate REGARDLESS"??

Huh?

The section you cite confirms exactly what I've been saying:


B) If the Attorney General, in consultation with the Chairman of the Board, determines and notifies the Board that circumstances reasonably indicate that the accident may have been caused by an intentional criminal act, the Board shall relinquish investigative priority to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The relinquishment of investigative priority by the Board shall not otherwise affect the authority of the Board to continue its investigation under this section.

N.B.
"the Board shall relinquish investigative priority to the Federal Bureau of Investigation."


With absolutely no doubt, The Board is subject to the Attorney General. It does not act independently.

[DulceDecorum]

199. Yeah, REGARDLESS.

Enough with the cherry picking.
READ THE WHOLE THING.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/1131.html

TITLE 49 SUBTITLE II CHAPTER 11 SUBCHAPTER III
Sec. 1131. - General authority
(a) General. -
(2)
(A) Subject to the requirements of this paragraph, an investigation by the Board under paragraph (1)(A)-(D) or (F) of this subsection HAS PRIORITY OVER ANY INVESTIGATION BY ANOTHER DEPARTMENT, AGENCY, OR INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/1131.html

(3) This section and sections 1113, 1116(b), 1133, and 1134(a) and (c)-(e) of this title do not affect the authority of another department, agency, or instrumentality of the Government to investigate an accident under applicable law or to obtain information directly from the parties involved in, and witnesses to, the accident.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/1131.html

The NTSB is supposed to investigate ANY and ALL aviation accidents.
The FBI can investigate them as well if it so desires.

(2) (A) The Board shall provide for appropriate participation by other departments, agencies, or instrumentalities in the investigation. However, those departments, agencies, or instrumentalities may not participate in the decision of the Board about the probable cause of the accident.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/1131.html

The NTSB is going to investigate
ANY and ALL aviation accidents within the US
REGARDLESS
of what the other agencies do or do not do.
And NOBODY can tell the NTSB what to write, when the NTSB compiles its report on the probable cause of the aviation accident.
Good.
WHAT does the NTSB have to say about
THE SINGLE WORST DAY IN AVIATION HISTORY?

September 13, 2001
As the crashes of the four airliners on Tuesday are criminal acts, the FBI is the lead investigative agency and will release all information on the progress of the investigation. News media should direct questions on this investigation to the FBI’s press office at [phone].
http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2001/010913.htm

What the hell happened to:
2) (B) If the Attorney General, in consultation with the Chairman of the Board, determines and notifies the Board that circumstances reasonably indicate that the accident may have been caused by an intentional criminal act, the Board shall relinquish investigative priority to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. THE RELINQUISHMENT OF INVESTIGATIVE PRIORITY BY THE BOARD SHALL NOT OTHERWISE AFFECT THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD TO CONTINUE ITS INVESTIGATION UNDER THIS SECTION.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/1131.html

WHY DID THE NTSB cave?
WHY IS THE NTSB NOT INVESTIGATING THESE ACCIDENTS?

(a) General. -
(1) The National Transportation Safety Board shall investigate or have investigated (in detail the Board prescribes) and establish the facts, circumstances, and cause or probable cause of -
(A) an aircraft accident the Board has authority to investigate under section 1132 of this title or an aircraft accident involving a public aircraft as defined by section 40102(a)(37) of this title other than an aircraft operated by the Armed Forces or by an intelligence agency of the United States;
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/1131.html

Sheesh.
I guess the NTSB just does NOT have the authority.

[RH]

200. No, NOT regardless.

I did read the whole thing. Did you?

It is all there in black and white.

It says "Subject to the requirements of this paragraph, an investigation by the Board under paragraph (1)(A)-(D) or (F)"

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/1131.html

N.B. the missing "(B)" and "C".
Priotity clearly applies only to (1)(A)-(D) or (F)

WHY IS THE NTSB NOT INVESTIGATING THESE ACCIDENTS?

Presumably because Part (B) applies, i.e.

"If the Attorney General, in consultation with the Chairman of the Board, determines and notifies the Board that circumstances reasonably indicate that the accident may have been caused by an intentional criminal act, the Board shall relinquish investigative priority to the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/1131.html

Would else would you expect? In view of 9/11 the Attorney General and the Board don't bother to consult? Only in cloud cuckoo land.

Furthermore that part is apparently absolute, not subject to any requirement apart from the Attorney General.

It is absurd to contrue the section otherwise; as you would have it Sec. 1131 (a)(2) risibly contradicts itself.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/1131.html

Amen.

[seatnineb]

204. F.B.I aviation skills............

rh
You are out on a very precarious limb with regards to the authority of the F.B.I.

Sec. 1131. - General authority
The relinquishment of investigative priority(To the F.B.I) by the (N.T.S.B) Board shall not otherwise affect the authority of the (N.T.S.B)Board to continue its investigation under this section.

So lets apply this to the TWA flight 800 tragedy.

Or rather how it was NOT applied..........

"The night of the disaster(TWA crash) the navy provided a DC-9 in Washington and loaded up the FBI and the navy people--and even though there were seats available, they would not allow the NTSB Go-Team to ride with them. They had to wait until the next day. By that time the FBI had taken over and never relinquished control.

The most important data is the eyewitness reports. And they would not even allow them to be interviewed by the NTSB people--only the FBI WHO ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO INVESTIGATE ACCIDENTS. But in this case they just blundered through with brute force and kept everyone at bay."
http://www.lightplanet.com/Clinton/flight_800_10-98.htm

Believe me.....

With regards to flight TWA 800 there is a lot to hide......

But that rh.....

Is a different story.

But with one denominator with 9/11/01.

The undoubted talents of the F.B.I to control ALMOST everything.

[RH]

161. Is that a self portrait?

Or a personal attack?

[DulceDecorum]

175. No, baby

its not.

[seatnineb]

137. The Mercurial contradiction!

The Truth that United Airlines should adhere to according to the F.A.A.

Once their aircraft(UA 175 and UA93) ARE DESTROYED

b) The Certificate of Aircraft Registration, with the reverse side completed, must be returned to the FAA Aircraft Registry --

United,thus far have done NO SUCH THING.

How can an Airline that has already filed for Bankruptcy continue to
violate federal law.

This is the contradiction that Merc believes in.

Keep belivin it Merc.......

One day you will come round...

[RH]

141. Just a minute, . .. I am not at all so sure.

US Airways may be the listed owner, according to the terms of the aviation regulation.


However, with regard to the return of a registration the rule is explicitly that:

"The Certificate of Aircraft Registration, with the reverse side completed, must be returned to the FAA Aircraft Registry --
(3) Upon the termination of the registration, by the holder of the Certificate of Aircraft Registration in all other cases mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section.

N.B. "holder"

Why then does the rule not specify this as the responsibilty of the "owner"?

Perhaps because for instance during a criminal investigation the FBI may become the "holder"?

[DulceDecorum]

142. Haw haw

RH says:
Perhaps because for instance during a criminal investigation the FBI may become the "holder"?

Where did you get THAT?
Show us
chapter, verse, and page.

And in the meantime,
the planes remain listed.
And the phone bunny told MercutioATC
that the owner ain't said nuffink.

[RH]

159. I don't have

chapter and verse, nor the time to hunt.

I suggest a possibility.

Regulations are not usually drafted so carelessly. Standard terms are employed, often cloned from previous versions.

When a different term are employed it is reasonable to understand that a different meaning is intended.

I'd thought that it was supposed to be a serious business.

[DulceDecorum]

186. Life is too serious,

to be taken seriously.
-- Oscar Wilde.

Brave Sir Robin ran away, bravely ran away away. When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled. Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about, and valiantly, he chickened out. Bravely taking to his feet, he beat a very brave retreat. A brave retreat by brave Sir Robin.
-- Monty Python.

[MercutioATC]

146. The alternative is to believe that United

is violating criminal law and still flying the planes (or the military is).

Again, United MAY be in violation but the reg is seldom enforced (if ever). Using it as "proof" that the planes are still flying is just silly. You're essentially saying that United would rather subject itself to criminal charges than a slap on the wrist for not filing FAA paperwork.

How do you rationalize this?

[DulceDecorum]

152. Why, exactly, would it be criminal

to fly either one of those two planes?

Especially if they are still airworthy?

[MercutioATC]

154. A few reasons...

Perhaps the most compelling is because it would make them complicit in an event that cost the lives of over 3000 people. If the "official story" is that the planes were hijacked and crashed, resulting in thousands of deaths, and United knows this isn't true (because they're still flying the planes in question) they're complicit in the murder of thousands of people.

You needed me to tell you that?

[DulceDecorum]

177. So if the people did NOT die

becuse the planes did NOT crash
then United Airlines is a criminal?

[MercutioATC]

179. Over 3000 died in the WTC towers. That's fact.

If United has knowledge that their plane was not involved, they're complicit. Period.

Again, you needed me to tell you that?

[DulceDecorum]

183. Just listen to yourself

MercutioATC says:
If United has knowledge that their plane was not involved, they're complicit. Period.

If United Airlines was NOT involved,
then they are complicit.

Then the converse must be true.

If United Airlines WAS involved,
then they are NOT complicit.

:silly:

[MercutioATC]

188. What part don't you understand?

If United's plane is still flying and wasn't involved, that means they have direct knowledge pertaining to a criminal case which they intentionally haven't revealed. That's against the law here in the States, DD. Where are YOU from.

I never said "If United Airlines was NOT involved, then they are complicit." Those are your words. What I DID say was if United KNOWS it's plane wasn't involved, they're complicit because they're withholding evidence.

Please let me know if you need further clarification. I'll try to think of an appropriate analogy.

[impe]

185. You're

kickin some hiney today! :)

How much was the bail out of United after 9/11? The fear of bankruptcy does strange things to folks.

[DulceDecorum]

203. Good Lord! That's a lot of money.

June 7, 2002
If the bailout wasn't enough to quench the airlines' thirst for taxpayer-financed subsidies, the economic stimulus bill passed by Congress in March also allowed companies to file amended tax returns and receive refunds on taxes paid in past years for losses incurred in 2002 and 2001. United Airlines received a $464 million tax refund, bringing their total compensation to over $1 billion. American Airlines and Delta, the number one and three carriers respectively, also stand to benefit from the refunds.
http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/wastebasket/budget/06-07-02airlinebailout.htm

June 7, 2002
United Airlines, which by the end of March had already received $644 million from the bailout act, received another $464 million from the tax refund. American Airlines and Delta, the number one and three carriers respectively, will also benefit from this refund.
http://www.bailoutwatch.org/airlines.htm

June 18, 2004
As reported by the Associated Press earlier today, Henry H. Harteveldt, vice president for travel research at Forrester Research, blamed United's problems on "broader business issues" not related to Sept. 11. According to the New York Times, United Airlines' operating costs are the second highest in the industry at 10.8 cents per seat per mile. Although the company reduced costs by 7 percent from 2001 to 2003, it still lags behind its competitors. Over the course of the last three years, United has lost almost $10 billion, including more than $3 billion while under bankruptcy protection during the last 16 months.
In December 2002, United was denied a similar request for a loan guarantee by ATSB because its business plan was found to be financially unsound and seriously flawed. The Board cited its responsibility to taxpayers as a major concern in deciding not to grant the loan.
http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?id=7801&news_iv_ctrl=1024&page=NewsArticle

[MercutioATC]

219. Kick

(I wouldn't have done this, but it seems others are kicking their long-dead threads back to the top and this one was mentioned recently)

[Abe Linkman]

220. How could FL 77 crash, if no such flight was scheduled on 9/11?

There have been claims that AA FL77 crashed at the Pentagon, despite the absence of credible evidence of the alleged crash.

I believe that one of DU's most thorough researchers and THINKERS, the Right Honorable, Very Dulce Decorum, has uncovered evidence proving that FL 77 was not even a scheduled flight on 9/11/01.

Does the ATC person have evidence to the contrary?

[tngledwebb]

221. Thanks for kicking your own thread, ironically it is one

that disproves another tenet ( and I don't mean George) of the OCT side.

[MercutioATC]

222. Another poster here seems to have kicked a couple of hers...

...from 18 months ago...and this subject did come up recently.

Oh, you're welcome, by the way.