Delta 89, Code 7112: the Faker Hijack Exercise

[Woody Box]

Delta 89 was tracked by NEADS for three minutes. Its existence has been ignored by the 9/11 Commission as well as authors Michael Bronner and Lynn Spencer.

But the NORAD tapes are proof: Delta 89 was NOT Delta 1989. And almost certainly Delta 89 was a live-fly exercise, covered up by Delta 1989.

Call sign....................Delta 1989.........................Delta 89

Flight plan.................Boston-Los Angeles..............Boston-Las Vegas

Squawk code...............1304.................................7112

Direction at 9:43.........westbound........................southwest/southbound

Transponder...............continously working.............turned off at 9:44


More here:

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2009/06/delta-89-code-7112-faker-hijack.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[spooked911]

2. Nice work

and very interesting!

[Woody Box]

5. Thanks a lot

I'm doing my best :hi:

[LARED]

3. I'm confident in another 15 to 20 years

you'll have this sorted out. Looking forward to it.

[Kesha]

6. Well, he already did

Delta 89`s squawk 7112 is the key to the question you`re prefering
to ignore.

Typical CT behaviour... Ignorance is bliss.

[snooper2]

4. Damn, you found that info!

I thought we had deleted all those records....I'm slacking :rofl:

[Kesha]

7. Indeed...

So, what`s your explanation for Delta 89, flying around and turning a 7'squawk on and of?

At a time when it wasn`t even scheduled to fly, and playing the transponder on/off game we know so well
from the better known "other" flights?

[travis80]

8. does this suggest the Cleveland landing theory is correct? n/t

[Woody Box]

12. Not exactly

These are the three core statements of the article

Proof: Delta 89 existed
Thesis: Delta 89 was a hijack exercise
Hypothesis: Delta 89 was the Cleveland mystery plane

I have no doubt that there was a secret second emergency landing at Cleveland (besides of Delta 1989), but if it was Delta 89, is not necessary for the correctness of the "Cleveland landing theory". Nevertheless, Delta 89 is the perfect candidate.

[travis80]

14. do you think Flight 93 still could have landed at Cleavland? n/t

[Woody Box]

15. psst, travis - it's being spelled Cleveland

why this hurry? Your questions are not snappy enough to justify repeated spelling errors.

[travis80]

16. what's with all the spelling cops around here?

i'm pretty sure you knew what i meant despite my unintentional typo. i can go back and correct them if you'd like.

[Woody Box]

17. Not necessary

I'm not immune to misspelling myself. Shit happens to everyone.

It's just that your questions come so quickly that you don't seem to be interested in the answer.

[travis80]

18. i just wanted to know your stance with the CleVeland theory

do you think Flight 93 might of landed there?

[Woody Box]

22. Okay

I never believed Flight 93 landed in Cleveland, I never stated that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland, and I'm not wont to answer questions with false premises ("do you still believe that..."). Take it as a kind of excuse for my bitching 2 posts before that I answer your question this time. Again:
I never believed Flight 93 landed in Cleveland, I never stated that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland.

[defendandprotect]

9. Exactly, what does all of this suggest . . .????

I did get at least halfway thru the article -- but it's late

and I'm not getting it -- !:)

[Woody Box]

10. Thanks for your interest

I know this article is scant with background information on FAA, NEADS, aviation stuff etc. Sorry, this was necessary to keep it short and straight.

The most important point is simply that the aircraft Delta 89 existed. The 9/11 commission as well as other commentators of the NORAD tapes act as if it was the same plane as Delta 1989. But the Delta 89 on the NORAD tapes is NOT Delta 1989, as I hope to have made clear.

Next question: What plane was Delta 89? Most likely a simulated hijacking as part of the ongoing military exercises. Where did it come from? Boston???Where did it go? Cleveland??? What happened to the people who participated in the hijack exercise? Have any of the (alleged) 9/11 hijackers been on Delta 89? These are the questions which come along with the rise of Delta 89.

Again, thanks for your interest, and feel free to ask more questions :fistbump:

[travis80]

11. what does this mean for the Cleavland landing theory? n/t

[defendandprotect]

19. Okay . . . so . . .

you're saying that along with the 4 programs running that day that 89
was a REAL plane which departed from Boston and was part of the training
programs?

And that it was being tracked in real time by regular radar and presumably
on military radar as well for the simulated programs?

The alleged hijackers are quite a question because the passenger lists
themselves are odd -- and it looks like their names were added later --
and passengers are below 50% capacity and more!


Thanks --


:)

[Woody Box]

20. answer

I need to be careful with my wording.

First, there is enough evidence that Delta 89 was a real plane, not just a communication failure (as implied by the official story freaks).

Second, Delta 89 was most likely a live-fly hijacking exercise.

However, whether Delta 89 was a plane from Delta Airlines, or whether it was a Boeing 767, or whether it was coming from Boston, is questionable, because these things are only based on the informations the plane itself submitted to NEADS. If it was a faker exercise, the infos might also have been wrong to deceit the air defense.

Nevertheless, Boston Airport is the first candidate for being Delta 89's origin. This doesn't mean the plane departed from Boston as "Delta 89". It might well have departed under another call sign and later changed its identity. I'm just working on the matter if and how it was tracked later by the FAA and NEADS.

Haye you ever heard of Roger Quirion and Brian Guerrette (this is from an old blog entry):

Roger Quirion and Brian Guerrette from Maine were passengers on the same Portland-Boston commuter flight as hijackers Mohammed Atta and Abdulaziz Al-Omari. The hijackers "struck them as suspicious", so they were among the first witnesses to tell the FBI about them. In Boston, they embarked on Delta 1989, and ended up in Cleveland.

So far so good. But their story is somewhat inconclusive:

At the airport, FBI agents asked the passengers a variety of questions about the Delta flight, so Quirion and Guerrette said they never thought at the time to give them any information about the Portland flight — or any of the people who were on it.

Guerrette said he did not believe that FBI agents at the time knew of the Portland connection. And being sheltered at the airport, the passengers were unaware of exactly what was happening in the rest of the country, they said.

It was not until Quirion and Guerrette arrived at the hotel at 5 p.m. that they were able to see a television and realize the magnitude of what had happened at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in a wooded area in western Pennsylvania.

When they woke up the next morning and turned on the news, they learned that two terrorists had boarded a plane in Portland early Tuesday, headed for Boston. That is when they remembered the two passengers from their first flight who struck them as suspicious.

"Brian came into my room and said, 'Remember those two guys?' " Quirion said.

He said he was not sure the information they had would help FBI agents, but they decided to contact the FBI anyway. They called at 9:30 a.m. Nine agents arrived in less than an hour and interviewed them separately for about 45 minutes, they said.

So being interrogated for hours by the FBI at the airport - why didn't they tell the agents immediately about their encounter with the two strange Middle Easterners, but waited until the next day? Their claim that they didn't think the Portland flight was relevant doesn't sound convincing. Their claim that the FBI asked them about the Delta flight is incomplete - the FBI was very much interested in any "unusual or suspicious activities at Logan Airport", as reported by the other Delta 1989 passenger. Here was the perfect opportunity to tell the FBI about the Portland-Boston flight and the mysterious Middle Easterners. Why didn't they do it?

Have they really been aboard Delta 1989? Or was it "Delta 89"?

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2007/02/cleveland-airport-mystery.html

[hack89]

23. The flaw in your argument

is that there is no evidence that the Air Force has ever used real airliners with real passengers in normal airspace for such exercises - especially since it is impossible to imagine that the air force would actually practice intercepts in commercial airspace. There is absolutely no way that the lives of so many innocents would be put at such a risk. Additionally, since there was no overland ADIZ there would be no need to practice overland intercepts.

The most likely scenario for a high jacking exercise would be a military aircraft flying in a military flight area. All forces can maneuver without the risk of colliding with civilian airliners. It makes no difference to the decision makers - most of these exercises are to ensure that people are familiar with the procedures.

[Woody Box]

24. So who was Delta 89 in your mind? nT

[hack89]

26. Don' t know - but it was not a high jacking exercise. nt

[Woody Box]

27. Why did it squawk "hijack" then? nT

[hack89]

28. It didn't

here is another mistake:

The first digit "7" indicates that it's not the ID code of an usual civilian airliner - they never begin with a 7. Instead, the 7 is reserved for emergency cases like 7500, 7600, or 7700. By squawking 7112, Delta 89 manages to pop up on the NEADS radar screens and signals a hijacking.

Here is the truth - there are plenty of non-emrgency squawks starting with 7:

# 7000:

* VFR standard squawk code when no other code has been assigned (ICAO) .
* UK: this code does not imply VFR; 7000 is used as a general conspicuity squawk.)

# 7001:

* Used in some countries to identify VFR traffic (France, ...)

# 7004: Aerobatic and display code in some countries.< [br /># 7010: VFR circuit traffic code in the UK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_(aviation)#Codes_assigned_by_ATC

7500 is the high jack code.

[Woody Box]

29. I know

Delta 89 didn't squawk the "regular" hijack code 7500. But nevertheless code 7112 triggered a hijack alarm at NEADS.

Natural explanation: Delta 89 was a hijacking exercise. And I don't buy your arguments that it was impossible to be one.

Your examples for a 7... code are also not convincing. We're not in the UK or France. Again: A 7... code is not used for civilian airliners.

[hack89]

30. It didn't

"we have a code on him now" means that they were manually interrogating aircraft. The way those older scopes work is that as each blip is selected, the IFF codes appear in a separate IFF display window. There was no hijack alarm - that is simply your projection.

You really think the the Air Force, the FAA and the airlines would allow practice intercepts of passenger jet with non-consenting passengers? You really don't think that it would violate every safety regulation known to man? But of course you can show plenty of examples this happening before?

[Woody Box]

32. Of course there was a hijack alarm

9:41:00 Delta 89 is a hijack, they think it's a hijack, south of Cleveland, we have a code on him now

9:41:05 Good! Pick it up! Find it!

If this is not a hijack alarm, what then???

Who the hell is saying that the Delta 89 "passengers" were "not-consenting"? Another one of your invalid premises.

[hack89]

33. "they think it's a hijack"

if there was a valid hijack code then there would not be any doubt, now would there?

The way that an emergency transponder code works on such a scope is the IFF video in the scope is enlarged so they stand out. The systems are hardwired to enlarge only the standard emergency codes 7500, 7600, 7700 to ensure there are no false alarms. A 7112 code would appear on the scope as regular IFF video. If there was in fact a valid hijack code then there would have been no need for "Pick it up! Find it!" it would have already jumped off the screen at them.

Non-consenting = do you think that the passengers knew that they were part of a hijacking drill? Or are you saying the plane was empty? Do you have any evidence at all that real passenger jets flying in the air traffic scheme have ever been used for such drills before? I say never - it never happened before 911 and it didn't happen on 911.

You have built a very shaky house of cards based on your interpretation of a couple of sentences. You have no reason to be so certain you are right.

[Woody Box]

36. answer

I don't know HOW the NEADS technicians determined that Delta 89 was a hijacking. I don't think a big red "H" appeared on their monochromic scopes, but that's not necessary. The easiest explanation is that NEADS expected a plane to pop up - precisely because they were conducting an hijacking exercise - and when it actually popped up, they immediately interpreted it as a hijacking.

There must something have happened on the radar screens when they shouted out: "Good! Pick it up! Find it". They certainly didn't shout without any reason. Scoggins' warning was way too early (90 seconds ago) to have caused the sudden uproar.

I think that at least some of the passengers, and probably the entire flight crews were wittingly taking part in a drill. You need evidence for volunteers taking part in a drill? Didn't you notice the "80 role-playing passengers and hijackers", the "about 100 volunteers", the "military personnel acting as civilian passengers" which are mentioned in my examples? Here's a suggested reading for you on replacement pilots, unscheduled flight attendants and last-minute passengers on 9/11:

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/03/last-minute-pilots-passengers-and.html

A "very shaky house of cards"? I respectfully disagree. Do you deny that NEADS reports a plane (Delta 89) squawking 7112?

[ryan_cats]

71. I don't buy this theory, however...

I don't buy this theory AND I don't want to give CTers evidence they'll run over a cliff with, however...
Non-consenting = do you think that the passengers knew that they were part of a hijacking drill? Or are you saying the plane was empty? Do you have any evidence at all that real passenger jets flying in the air traffic scheme have ever been used for such drills before? I say never - it never happened before 911 and it didn't happen on 911.

Remember when KAL007 was shot down by the Soviet Union? We later found out that we had an (I believe) RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft shadowing it and that was possibly the reason KAL007 was shot down. Anyone, feel free to correct me with facts.

[Woody Box]

31. I'm not sure if you know what you're talking about

What do you mean by "real airliner" and "real passengers"? Ordinary civilian aircraft with ordinary civilians on board?

If I take these definitions, "Delta 89" was no real airliner - the call sign/flight number was certainly not authorized by Delta Airlines. And its passengers did likely not have a ticket from Delta Airlines in their pocket.

Here's what I found with a quick search:

United Flight 9073, en route from Paris to Chicago, will be hijacked
Saturday. An escort of swarming military jets will force it to land at
Logan International Airport in Boston. After a hostage is killed and
thrown onto the tarmac, an assault team will storm the plane. Ambulances
will speed away with the injured.

And it's all a drill.

It's the first terrorism exercise in the United States involving an
in-flight military intercept of a commercial jet since the Sept. 11,
2001, terrorist attacks, Massachusetts Port Authority officials say.

The plane used in the exercise will carry about 80 role-playing
passengers and hijackers, who will pretend to commandeer the plane as it
flies over the Atlantic. Jets will be dispatched to intercept the flight
and force it to land.

...

Hundreds of people from nearly 50 federal, state, and local agencies
will then converge on Logan. Tactical assault, hazardous materials, and
other teams will handle hostage negotiations, injured passengers, and
other emergency situations, including the threat of a bomb on the plane.

http://www.securityinfowatch.com/boston-airport-be-stage-major-hijacking-drill

Federal, state and local officials working at or near Boston's Logan International Airport are readying plans to deal with a mock transoceanic jet hijacking this week.

The drill calls for a United Airlines flight from Paris to Chicago to be diverted by military jets to Logan, where authorities will have to handle mock hijackers and their "hostages," a simulated release of a possibly dangerous chemical and a large number of mock casualties, says security consultant Peter LaPorte, who helped design the scenario.

...

United volunteered to participate, supplying one of its Boeing 757s. A similar aircraft is seen taking off from Logan toward downtown Boston. "We have a full pilot and flight attendant crew on board, along with about 100 volunteers" as passengers, says United spokesman Jeffrey Green.

http://www.globalspec.com/reference/16140/121073/Logan-Airport-To-Host-Mock-Transoceanic-Hijacking-Exercise

DENVER -- Jets packed with people took off from Oak Harbor, Wash., and Salt Lake City yesterday in a simulated hijacking training exercise designed to improve coordination among American and Canadian agencies.

Fighter jets from the North American Aerospace Defense Command scrambled to respond to the simulated hijackings and were to run through several hypothetical scenarios, including one that involved shooting down the planes.

...

The exercise, involving more than 1,500 personnel from the United States and Canada, began about 6 a.m. The hijacking scenarios began shortly thereafter.
One plane, a Delta Air Lines 757, took off from Salt Lake City and was headed to Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage, Alaska.
The other was a Navy C-9 airlifter, acting as another airliner, which traveled from Whidbey Island Naval Air Station at Oak Harbor to Vancouver, B.C., International Airport.

Both were packed with military personnel acting as civilian passengers. NORAD planned to run through a number of scenarios that would end with the planes landing. Once that occurred, law enforcement on the ground were to run through scenarios dealing with the hijackers from there.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/73287_hijack05.shtml

Mock aircraft, mock hijackings, mock passengers - as you see, there is a broad spectrum of realistic hijacking scenarios.

Your argument that wargame designers never would take the risk to stage an intercept overland is, if correct at all, weak. Who says that the intercepting of Delta 89 was not planned over a military area? It's only your premise that it would take place in commercial airspace.

My "Delta 89 was a faker hijack exercise" thesis was a conclusio ex negativo, i.e. the only way to explain

- the fake call sign of Delta 89 (it was NOT Delta Airlines Flight 89)
- the fact that it was highlighted on NEADS radar screens
- the fact that it squawked the irregular code 7112
- the fact that it switched off the transponder at 9:44

Your arguments so far are not stringent enough to stand up to these points. Frankly, they are as soft as a pudding.

[hack89]

34. Look at all that publicity - can you find the press release from 911?

all your examples were heavily publicized well before hand - can you show me the announcement prior to the 911 drills?

[Woody Box]

35. Logical flaw

The fact that certain drills are publicized before being conducted in no way implies that all drills are publicized beforehand. You're making the typical and widespread logical error to mix up necessary and sufficient condition. I'm sure that they the majority of drills are not made public like my examples.

What kind of press release do you expect? Maybe that here?

"On September 11, 2001, a huge military exercise is planned for the northeastern USA. Two airliners from Boston will simulate a hijacking and are diverted to Cleveland. Over 100 volunteers play the part of the passengers. The 'hijackers' are played by persons of Middle Eastern descent who were hired and infiltrated into the country by the CIA. At Cleveland Airport, the passengers are evacuated to the nearby NASA Center as part of the exercise."

[defendandprotect]

25. Hadn't heard of these two "witnessses" . . .

Have you ever heard of Roger Quirion and Brian Guerrette (this is from an old blog entry):

(NO!)

Roger Quirion and Brian Guerrette from Maine were passengers on the same Portland-Boston commuter flight as hijackers Mohammed Atta and Abdulaziz Al-Omari. The hijackers "struck them as suspicious", so they were among the first witnesses to tell the FBI about them. In Boston, they embarked on Delta 1989, and ended up in Cleveland.

My first thoughts on this is whether these men may have been "witnesses" intended to verify
the existence of Atta and Al-Omari. The hijackers were supposedly on "24 Hour Watch List" of FBI.
And hijackers supposedly booked flights in their own names with their credit cards!

(OK . . . so they end up in Cleveland...)

So far so good. But their story is somewhat inconclusive:

At the airport, FBI agents asked the passengers a variety of questions about the Delta flight, so Quirion and Guerrette said they never thought at the time to give them any information about the Portland flight — or any of the people who were on it.

(!!!-???)

Guerrette said he did not believe that FBI agents at the time knew of the Portland connection. And being sheltered at the airport, the passengers were unaware of exactly what was happening in the rest of the country, they said.

(hmmm.....)

It was not until Quirion and Guerrette arrived at the hotel at 5 p.m. that they were able to see a television and realize the magnitude of what had happened at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in a wooded area in western Pennsylvania.

When they woke up the next morning and turned on the news, they learned that two terrorists had boarded a plane in Portland early Tuesday, headed for Boston. That is when they remembered the two passengers from their first flight who struck them as suspicious.

"Brian came into my room and said, 'Remember those two guys?' " Quirion said.

He said he was not sure the information they had would help FBI agents, but they decided to contact the FBI anyway. They called at 9:30 a.m. Nine agents arrived in less than an hour and interviewed them separately for about 45 minutes, they said.

So being interrogated for hours by the FBI at the airport - why didn't they tell the agents immediately about their encounter with the two strange Middle Easterners, but waited until the next day? Their claim that they didn't think the Portland flight was relevant doesn't sound convincing. Their claim that the FBI asked them about the Delta flight is incomplete - the FBI was very much interested in any "unusual or suspicious activities at Logan Airport", as reported by the other Delta 1989 passenger. Here was the perfect opportunity to tell the FBI about the Portland-Boston flight and the mysterious Middle Easterners. Why didn't they do it?

Have they really been aboard Delta 1989? Or was it "Delta 89"?

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2007/02/cleveland-airpo...

Well -- while not wholly believable re forgetting their concerns about the suspicious passengers
from Portland to Boston -- it's possible.

But, I'll stick with my first thought . . .
they didn't create a big enough trail to link Atta and Al-Omari to Portland --
and they had to provide other links.

I think your work on "89" is important --
and that someone should be looking into those two guys to verify who they are.

Obviously, since it's being denied whatever it's purpose, it wasn't a good one!


:)

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

49. didn't Delta 89 go south and west

of Cleveland?


What ever became of the reports of a plane down at Ohio/Kentucky border?

I read a transcript from air traffic control, i think, and as of the end of that they never resolved
that mystery.

I'm curious. could Delta 89 have actually been this downed plane?

and a "secret landing" in cleveland a conspiracy?

[Echo In Light]

13. Thanks for posting

[Woody Box]

21. You're welcome nT

[Woody Box]

37. Miles Kara responds

9/11 Commissioner Miles Kara has reacted to my blog:

http://www.oredigger61.org/?cat=18

Not surprising, he dismisses the existence of Delta 89 (being different from Delta 1989) and claims that the plane with code 7112 was flying around in Massachussetts.

Apart from this breathtaking claim he ignores that I have compiled much more evidence than only the unknown squawk code. I will elaborate this on my blog soon.

Kara ends his piece with an insolent rant: Such is the cloth from which myths are made in real time; proactive thinking, conflated information, and, ultimately, circular reporting. Such is the cloth from which myths are perpetuated; incomplete analysis based on partial information misinterpreted.

Myths, conflated information, circular reporting, incomplete analysis, information misinterpreted. This is heavy stuff from someone who didn't even bother to respond to ALL discrepancies I showed up, not just the squawk code.

You'll hear from me, Mr. Kara.

[William Seger]

39. Ouch, that's gotta hurt...

... pro'lly leave a mark.

To speculate otherwise ignores a simple truth; there is one and only one plane in the radar files, both FAA and RADES, and in the air traffic control communications. The primary source documents are definitive and conclusive.

[SDuderstadt]

40. "You'll hear from me, Mr. Kara"

Yeah, I bet he monitors DU constantly trying to decipher your next move, Woody.

[Kesha]

41. No problem...

I left a comment on his blog,
http://www.oredigger61.org/?p=229&cpage=1#comment-86

---------------------------------

Kesha says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 10, 2009 at 2:58 pm

NORAD tapes are proof: Delta 89 was NOT Delta 1989. And almost certainly Delta 89 was a live-fly exercise, covered up by Delta 1989.

Call sign………………..Delta 1989…………………….Delta 89

Flight plan……………..Boston-Los Angeles…………..Boston-Las Vegas

Squawk code……………1304……………………………7112

Direction at 9:43………westbound……………………southwest/southbound

Transponder……………continously working………….turned off at 9:44

Click here for details:
http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2009/06/delta-89-code-7112-faker-hijack.html

----------------------------------------


Let`s see if it`s gonna be published, and if it does, with which reply...

[Kesha]

42. still the same Status Quo...

http://www.oredigger61.org/?p=229&cpage=1#comment-86

Kesha says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 10, 2009 at 2:58 pm

-------------------------------
Seems he needs more than
24 hours to check the comment, not to speak
of a reply to simple facts...

[William Seger]

43. Looks like he already responded earlier today

Oredigger 61 says:
August 11, 2009 at 6:55 am

Kesha, the proof is pretty straight forward. The primary source information is available to anyone who wants to put the time in. The tape of the NEADS position, run in Adobe Audition, clearly shows the nature of the conversation concerning Mode 3 code 7112. The nature of the Alderson transcripts is explained in my article, NEADS tutorial. I ran the Rades radar program to isolate code 7112 and all primary only returns and took a snapshot of that to post in my article. Anyone can verify/validate what I did. It takes a combination of two primary sources–radar and audio–together with a transcript to figure out what actually occurred. I encourage you or other interested persons to replicate my work with primary source information and come to your own conclusion.

Incidentally, the Alderson transcript also refers to a Mode 3 code 1504. There were at least two planes with that code that morning. However, when the tape is listened to it is clear that the transmission was “1304.” The transcript entry is a misread by the transcriber. And that can be separately verified as well by anyone interested.

Thank you for your interest.

Miles Kara

Actually, I think his initial post was a pretty good response:

Such is the cloth from which myths are made in real time; proactive thinking, conflated information, and, ultimately, circular reporting. Such is the cloth from which myths are perpetuated; incomplete analysis based on partial information misinterpreted.

[SDuderstadt]

44. I guess he's still waiting to "hear from"...

Woody Box.

[Kesha]

45. ...and in the meantime

...you may explain why both flights are identical:


Call sign………………..Delta 1989…………………….Delta 89

Flight plan……………..Boston-Los Angeles…………..Boston-Las Vegas

Squawk code……………1304……………………………7112

Direction at 9:43………westbound……………………southwest/southbound

Transponder……………continously working………….turned off at 9:44


Danke für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsvorschriften,
Kesha

[William Seger]

46. Maybe you should actually read Kara's article and response to you.

The ball is in your and Woody's court to try to find some good reason to take this wacky hypothesis seriously. Ignoring what Kara is saying is not a good start.

[Kesha]

47. I read it...

...and the answer is my comment which hasn`t been published yet on his site.

The guy is simply ignoring the parts of the transcripts which don`t fit into
his own interpretation. The ball is still in his court.



Edit:
Read his answer now, but my comment is still missing.
Not sure what he`s trying to say, though.

[William Seger]

48. Seems pretty simple to me

There is no good reason to think that "almost certainly Delta 89 was a live-fly exercise."

[Kesha]

50. There is a very good reason...

http://www.foc.ivao.de/misc/squawk.htm

In 2001, the 7xxx row was reserved for emergencies only.

From my link, and it`s quite interesting that I didn`t find an English source within a reasonable period of
time:

"Die Vergabe von Codes 7xxx ist zu vermeiden, da es zu ungewollten Auslösungen von Notfallsquawks führen kann."
=
"Avoid to allocate Codes 7xxx as they might result in an unintentional triggering of emergency squawks."


In other words, setting a 7xxx transponder code is the best way to get a lot of attention...

[William Seger]

51. No, that is not "a very good reason"

1) 7xxx in not "reserved for emergencies only";

2) 7500 is the code for a hijacking;

3) there is not really any reason to think the plane referred to as "Delta 89" was also the plane that was squawking 7112 -- that's just Woody's unsubstantiated claim;

4) Kara documents what flight 7112 actually was with the radar data; and

5) the entire premise of this "Delta 89" hypothesis doesn't really make much sense, anyway -- just some incoherent mumbling about "cover for 1989," which itself was only accidentally involved in an inconsequential way in the events of 9/11.

Fail.

[Kesha]

52. Just allegations...

I provided a link, you answered with mere allegations...

So what... have a nice day.

[William Seger]

56. These "allegations" ...

... come directly from the links that have already been discussed.

Fail.

[KDLarsen]

53. Erhm..

IVAO = International Virtual Aviation Organisation.

It's an organisation devoted to flying online using a variety of commercial PC flight simulators. They are not related to ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

[Kesha]

54. Sorry, didn`t notice that... the transponder codes are real, though

Found a website which is explaining quite well why a 7xxx squawk code is usually
avoided. ATCs simply don`t assign 7xxx's for the same reason:


"Keeping in mind that 7500, 7600, 7700, and 7777 are reserved for emergency uses, we should do our best to avoid inadvertently squawking these codes. For example, if you're currently assigned 6777 and are told to squawk 0325, you should tune the 325 in before tuning the 0. Why? Well, if you're spinning that knob just as fast as you can from 6 to 0 and the Mode A interrogation comes in during that split second when your first digit is at 7, then you'll have a lot of explaining to do when they ask why you're involved with a military interception. Another alternative is to turn the first knob away from 7 (i.e., 6-5-4-3-2-1-0 rather than 7-0).

Tuning the last 3 digits to get out of emergency range before rotating the first knob will keep you from making some embarrassing mistakes. If, for some reason, you have to go from say 5500 to 0700, you might just consider turning the knob the long way just to avoid transitioning through the 7000 range."

http://joysofflight.blogspot.com/2009/03/switching-squawk-codes-on-analog.html

[William Seger]

55. "Keeping in mind..."

"... that 7500, 7600, 7700, and 7777 are reserved for emergency uses, we should do our best to avoid inadvertently squawking these codes."

And still no cogent response to Kara's identification of the plane that was squawking 7112, or anything else he says in his article or his response to you.

Fail.

[Kesha]

59. Fail, indeed...

Please tell where he has published my initial question?

He`s answering questions which I didn`t ask...

[Woody Box]

60. Very strange editing method, indeed

publishing answers without the underlying question.

I guess this is meant as a kind of brain training: you've got the answer - find the question! :silly:

I suggest to save the question before posting it on Kara's website.

[Kesha]

64. I indeed saved my comment...

Please see my postings #41 + #42 for reference.

[William Seger]

65. I don't see any question in your comment

You just made some unsubstantiated (and implausible) assertions. So, in a way, I guess you're right: Kara is answering questions you didn't ask. If your implicit question was, "What's wrong with these assertions?" then Kara certainly did answer that, but I keep getting the impression that you haven't really read his article or his response to you.

[Woody Box]

58. ahem...something doesn't add up here...

Kara thinks that 7112 was heading northeastbound when being picked up at azimuth 287, range 97 miles by North Truro radar station.

http://www.oredigger61.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/code-7112.ppt

He also seems to think that 7112 was first picked up at azimuth 288, range 92 miles before being picked up at azimuth 287, range 97 miles. These position data are clearly understandable on the tapes, within a half-minute interval.

At 9:42 her supervisor assigned her a target off of radar site 53, azimuth 288 and range 92 miles. She picked it up at azimuth 287 and range 97 miles.(Kara)

But this would indicate that 7112 was heading westbound, more precisely: slightly west-north-west.

7112 northeastbound or westbound at 9:42? Something doesn't add up here...

[William Seger]

66. Try again

Kara did NOT say that the target referred to in that part of the transcripts was the plane that was squawking 7112, and in fact he says:

It is clear from the tape and the radar that the technician worked a target in the Northeast—-not 7112 by the way—-before she was assigned to track Delta 1989.

Fail.

[Woody Box]

67. Okay. Next try

Kara didn't "say" that Code 7112 was spotted at azimuth 287, distance 97 miles from North Truro.

But his powerpoint picture clearly implies exactly that, doesn't it?

http://www.oredigger61.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/code-7112.ppt

So you think that this plane in the Northeast that the technician was working before is identical to the target referred to in the passage I cited?

Interesting theory. That would mean that a forth plane - besides of Code 7112 and the two VFR aircraft in the vicinity - was spotted at azimuth 287, range 97 miles.

Most interesting theory. I really have to think about it. :sarcasm:

[William Seger]

68. Yes, rethinking would be a good strategy at this point.(n/t)

[Woody Box]

69. Kara relies on a deficient NEADS transcript

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2009/08/official-neads-tapes-transcript-sketchy.html

[Kalun D]

38. Good Post

They had to distract the normal defenses or they wouldn't have got through. There was probably more than one fake hijacked plane flying around on 911.

[Bolo Boffin]

57. No Delta 89

"89" was always shorthand for 1989

http://www.oredigger61.org/?p=229

Notations in Commission files, in contemporary documents of the day, and in testimony before the Commission that refer to flight “89″ are simply shorthand notations for Delta 1989. Lynn Spencer in Touching History acknowledges this; her notation style is ‘<19>89.’ To speculate otherwise ignores a simple truth; there is one and only one plane in the radar files, both FAA and RADES, and in the air traffic control communications. The primary source documents are definitive and conclusive.

The 9-11 Commission Staff sorted this out in the primary source information–tapes, transcripts, logs and radar. Concerning the latter, we tailored a radar video, isolating just the two tracks, Delta 1989 and United 93, so that we could demonstrate to NORAD officials at every echelon that their story that the observed United 93 ‘meandering’ in the skies was, in fact, their watching the flight path of Delta 1989. No one at any NORAD echelon disagreed with our findings.

[Realityhack]

61. Bolo... you aren't suposed to use facts in this forum.

It hurts peoples feelings. You have to use unsubstantiated conjecture. That keeps everyones views on an even footing.

[Woody Box]

62. Leave Bolo alone

What do you want? Bolo has (as usually) posted an unsubstantiated conjecture:

"89" was always shorthand for 1989

Everything is fine. :P

[Realityhack]

63. You may want to look up the meaning of some of the words you are using. n/t

[Raphael Weber]

70. BTS

While mainly the discussion focused on the squawk code I’d like to point out that the OP makes a pretty strong case that we do have two different planes.
This is important because at the Hearing of the Independent Commission Colonel Scott always speaks of Delta 89. This is very strange cause it was Delta 1989 that was considered a hijack. And not Delta 89. Therefore the Commission Report always speaks of Delta 1989.
So is it simply floopy reporting by Scott?
That’s difficult to believe as a daily flight Delta 0089 really existed.
This again is a very strong indication that no way an ATC would talk of Delta 89 when in reality he would refer to Delta 1989.
This is therefore also to be considered supporting the thesis that based on the ATC reports we have to consider there to have been a Delta 1989 and a Delta 89 this morning.
But according to the BTS the Delta 89 flight was cancelled. It usually took off at 15:00.
And now I can only say: This is very very strange! (Though I admit not to know what to make of it. But just because I don’t know what to make of it doesn’t reduce the fact that there are obviously too many strange things going on here)