(copy / pasted from --> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x25173
John Doe II (1000+ posts)
Wed Nov-10-04 05:18 PM Original message
Delta 1989: A timeline of "a red herring" and unanswered questions
The Delta 1989 made an emergency landing at
Cleveland on 911. Woody Box dealt in a very interesting article on the “Cleveland Airport Mystery”. Especially
concerning all the contradicting accounts of the landing of Delta etc his article is essential reading. http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php...
Not much is known about this flight that Colonel Scott called in his testimony “a red herring”.
Time to change this as there are still many unanswered questions.
8 :05 Delta 1989 pushes back from the gate at
Boston Logan Airport.
8:25 Delta 1989 takes off (two minutes after UA 175).
Shortly after 9 :03 “FBI
agents called an air traffic facility in Ohio that was tracking Flight 1989. Watch what the Delta flight does, agents told
controllers at Cleveland Center. Controllers there had already been watching. Like the FBI, they realized that the Delta flight
had taken off from Boston just minutes after American Flight 11 and United Flight 175 — the two jets that crashed into
the Trade Center towers. The similarities didn't end there.” http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-08-13-cle...
9 :28 UA 93 : The attack of the hijackers begins. “While travelling 35,000 feet above eastern
Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds in the descent, the FAA’s air traffic control center received
the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft. During the first broadcast, the captain or first officer could be
heard declaring “Mayday” amid the sound of physical struggle in the cockpit. The second radio transmission, 35
seconds later, indicated that the fight was continuing. The captain or first officer could be heard shouting: “Hey,
get out of here – get out of here – get out of here.” (CR, 11)
Delta 1989: “Now about 9:30
a.m., controllers hear words that seem to confirm their worst fears. They hear shouting as Flight 1989 approaches the Ohio
border. Then they hear a voice: "Get out of there!" Then what sounds like a scuffle.” http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-08-13-cle...
My comment: This is exactly the same sounds as for UA 93. MercutioATC
pointed out to me that a controller has no possibility to figure out from which plane a sound was coming. That’s why
controllers always asks the planes to identify. So this can explain the mix up of UA and Delta at this moment.
question: Why did the controller never asked Delta if it had a problem. After the sounds he only tried to contact UA 93 not
Delta 1989. From the controller’s behaviour it seems clear to me that he has no doubt that UA 93 has a problem not Delta.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/flight93-air-traffic.h... MercutioATC, maybe I mix up things here. Corrections always appreciated!
At first, they wondered if the struggle was coming from Delta 1989. "The controller asks the transmission
to repeat itself, not knowing exactly what you had heard," Kettell said. "We finally were able to deduce... (which one) was
the airplane not talking to us. That was Flight 93." (Akron Beacon Journal, 8/14/02)
"After the second struggle,
we were pretty sure we had a problem on Flight 93, but we were also still watching Flight 1989," he said. (Akron Beacon
9 :32 UA 93 : Jarrah’s announcement : « Ladies and Gentlemen: Here the captain, please
sit down keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb on board. So, sit.” (CR, 12)
Delta 1989: “Minutes later,
a new voice, this one with a heavy accent: "Ladies and gentlemen, here it's the captain. Please sit down. Keep remaining sitting.
We have a bomb aboard." No one who hears those words believes they are coming from Werner. Not with such a heavy accent.
No way. Rather, the transmission seems to be from a hijacker who unwittingly spoke over the radio when he meant to address
My comment: This are exactly the same sounds and words as from UA 93.
93: Herndon Command Center advises FAA headquarters that UA 93 is hijacked. (CR, 33)
My comment: This two statements clearly contradict each other
9 :36 Controllers
order Delta to go away from UA 93 : Controller #3: (From tape) Delta 1989, that traffic for you is 11 o'clock and 15 miles
southbound 41, climbing, looks like he's turning east, flight heading 3-6-zero. (ABC, 11/15/01)
9:39 UA 93: “FAA’s Cleveland Air Route Traffic Control Center overheard a second
announcement indicating that there was a bomb on board, that the plane was returning to the airport, and that they should
remain seated.” (CR, 12)
My comment: I didn’t find any account that also
the second announcement was believed to have come from Delta 1989. Therefore the 9:39 announcement once again stressed the
fact that UA 93 was hijacked and not Delta 1989. Until here it seems clear to me that the controller was clear that only
UA had trouble. But ….
My comment: The transponder of UA 93 is turned off and Delta is assumed to be hijacked???
Time ? “The Delta flight wants to land in Cleveland? And the captain's request comes before he can know
that the FAA wants every flight down. On this day, the fact that the pilot requests to be rerouted before he is ordered to
land seems suspicious. Why the urgency? Controllers don't know that Delta officials, also concerned about the flight, have
ordered Werner to land in Cleveland. They continue to send messages to Werner. In code, they ask him if all is OK. Yes, he
responds time and again. He doesn't know why they're so worried.” http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-08-13-cle...
9:46 “The Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Office of the Vice Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff reported that they were still trying to track down the secretary and vice chairman, and bring them into
the conference. The chairman was out of the country.” http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing12/9-11Com...
9:48 “A representative from the underground shelter at the White House asked if there
were any indications of another hijacked aircraft. The NMCC deputy director for operations mentioned the Delta flight and
concluded, quote, "that would be the fourth possible hijack." http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing12/9-11Com...
My comment: Not “fith hijack”! Nobody is talking of UA 93!
10:00 (estimation) “And now, preparing for landing, Werner has more important things to worry about. He was too close
to Cleveland when he got the order to land. So he loops back, over Michigan, and heads toward the city. As the jet begins
its descent, another message comes through. Busy, Werner fails to respond.” http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-08-13-cle...
10:00 As a precaution, the tower at Cleveland Hopkins "went to a minimum staffing level" as the
Delta flight landed.
“Cleveland Mayor Michael White said at a news conference this morning that a Boeing 767
out of Boston made an emergency landing at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport because of fears a bomb was aboard.” http://news.globalfreepress.com/ewing/woodybox/akronbea... (NBC, 9/11/01 11:00) (ABC, 9/11/01 11:00) (AP, 9/11/01 g)
For the contradicting times see Woody Box’s article.
11:00 “In a televised
news conference at 11, Mayor Michael R. White first said there was an unconfirmed report that the plane might have been hijacked
or was carrying a bomb. But in the middle of the news conference, he reported that it had not been hijacked, and later in
the day he said no bomb had been found. White's office later said that the plane landed as a precaution. http://news.globalfreepress.com/ewing/woodybox/clevelan...
Time unknown “Meanwhile, White said a second airplane in distress had passed through Cleveland
airspace Tuesday morning before being handed off to Toledo. Officials at Toledo Express Airport did not immediately have
any information about the plane.” http://www.wcpo.com/specials/2001/americaattacked/news_... (Akron Beacon, 9/11/01)
11:15 Evacuation of the passengers from Delta 1989 begins. “The
200 passengers were reportedly released from the plane at 11:15 a.m., though White said the pilot was still concerned that
a bomb remained.” (Akron Beacon, 9/11/01)
12:30 Evacuation of the passengers from Delta 1989 begins. “For two hours, passengers
and crew will stay aboard the jet. Cautiously, federal investigators will talk with Capt. Werner through an open cockpit window.
Finally, they will board the flight and interview its passengers and crew.” http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-08-13-cle...
“The plane sat on airport property between the terminal, the NASA Glenn Research Center
and the International Exposition Center for about two hours. About 12:30 p.m. baggage cars and shuttle buses approached the
plane. The 69 passengers and nine crew members then walked down a portable staircase and onto the buses, which took them to
FAA headquarters nearby.” http://news.globalfreepress.com/ewing/woodybox/clevelan...
Additional information: NEADS never lost track of Delta 1989, and even ordered
fighter aircraft from Ohio and Michigan to intercept it. The flight never turned off its transponder. NEADS soon learned
that the aircraft was not hijacked, and tracked Delta 1989 as it reversed course over Toledeo, headed east, and landed in
Cleveland. (CR, 28) Therefore we can also conclude that Delta 1989 didn’t divert from its flight path until being
My comment: Why is Delta the only flight where apparently the air defence worked?
evacuations are surrounding UA 93 and Delta 1989: “Later that tense day, after most planes had landed, Oberlin
police warned the center of a small plane still flying and headed toward the center. That warning resulted in a brief evacuation
except for essential employees. Kettell said that plane simply flew past and was never identified.” http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2002/08/15/loc_sept_11...
“As a precaution, the tower at Cleveland Hopkins "went to a minimum staffing level" as
the Delta flight landed. The plane taxied to a safe area. Passengers remained on the jet for several hours as security officials
inspected the plane. The Pittsburgh FAA facility also was evacuated as Flight 93 approached. <…> After
the plane crashed, a small aircraft was spotted flying over the city of Oberlin, Kettell said. "I made a decision to evacuate
the facility except for a bare minimum staffing," he said. That plane eventually landed at an airport north of Oberlin, he
said.” (Akron Beacon, 8/14/02)
The Commission Report: “NEADS soon learned that the aircraft
was not hijacked, and tracked Delta as it reversed course over Toledo, headed east, and landed in Cleveland”. (CR, 28) Sounds
very simple. But as shown it wasn’t simple.
General questions: Why does the
Commission not mention the bomb that was believed to have been aboard Delta 1989? Why does the Commission not mention when
it was known that Delta 1989 wasn’t hijacked? Why does the Commission not mention the evacuation of Cleveland tower,
airport and city? Why does the Commission not explain the reason why Delta was believed to have been hijacked? Why does
the Commission not explain why FAA and NORAD seem to have worked perfectly for Delta but not for UA 93?
And, tngledwebb, to your question below what I think really happened: for
the moment I'm trying to bring as many information together and ask questions. For the analysis of what could have happened
other researchers are much better than me, eg Woody Box!
12. Watching the 9/11 hearings was shocking, almost laughable.
Most of it outright dissembling, lies, and propaganda read from notes by carefully
selected BushCo govt officials, nothing at all like a serious investigation. The final report proves their irrelevance.
If one adds to the list above the following facts then it's really hard to
understand why Delta was considered by the NMCC the "fourth" hijacking and fighters were scrambled while NORAD was officially
never aware of the hijacking of UA 93 and fighters weren't scrambled:
The phone calls from passengers from UA 93: Beginning
from 9:27 Tom Burnett and others told their beloved ones that they were on UA 93 and it was hijacked. Many phone calls were
monitored by FBI or a 911 dispatcher.
9:41 Teh flight controller Greg Callahan is talking to an FBI agent. the agent
says about UA 93: "We suspect that this aircraft has now been taken over by hostile forces". (MSNBC, 9/11/02)
three minutes later NORAD briefs the NMCC teleconference on the possible hijacking of .... Delta 1989 and Charles Leidig
comments "that this would be the fourth possible hijack".
Reading the transcript of UA 93 put ono the net by memoryhole I'm very surprised
to find that the Cleveland controller never tried to figure out if the bomb threat and other sounds from the cockpit came
from Delta 1989. He only and repeatedly asked for UA 93. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/flight93-air-traffic.h...
So how come that Delta 1989 was an assumed hijack because of the bomb threat if the controller
himslef apparently never thought of this possibility?
But as I lack professional ATC knowledge I can't judge I only
want to point out that I find this rather strange (and furthermore adding up to my question: Why on earth Delta could have
been considered fourth hijacking and even air fighters were launched?)
I would be very happy if especially MercutioATC
with his professional knowledge could help better to understand what happened.
To all those who wonder what could be
interesting about Delta 1989 I once again would like to point out that it made an emergency landing and having a look at Woody
Box' Cleveland thread there is still the analysis that actually two emergency ladings happened that both are supposed to have
been Delta 1989 which means an unknown plane made an emergency landing. So as theses questions are combined I think they need
13. A summary of what you think happened would be helpful...
In general- 9/11 war games provided cover and plausible deniabilty for national
stand down, as well as keeping honest officials out of the loop, hiding evidence of inside job, etc...
Or more specifically- A
doppelganger plane from Boston was required for moving (or re-moving) actual passengers from the other 'bumble' flight(s)
and/or to cover crash of Flight 93, etc. May also be linked to Flight 77, given proximity to same region that Flt 77 disappeared,
ie Pa or Ohio.
the wargames played a bigger role than providing cover and plausible deniabilty
for national stand down and so on. This is basically Mike Ruppert's thesis in his "Crossing the Rubicon".
I think it
was more. Some of the hijacked planes themselves were part of the wargames. You remember these radio messages from flight
11 and (allegedly) flight 93: "We have some planes", "We have a bomb on board", etc.? They were playing hijackings to test
the FAA controllers (the most of them not being informed, of course). These "hijacked" planes didn't crash into the towers,
however, they landed at a secret location and were replaced by remote control planes.
Later it was stated that the
simulated hijackings were real hijackings. Proof (among other things): the radio messages.
And Delta 1989's doppelganger?
I tell you: Another wargame.
15. Thanks woody b, I agree, but left some of those other
But what were the logistics? Be great if someone could post a map or graph,
w/times, for the various movements of the real planes and remote planes, especially with new theories re doppelganger/Cleveland
events. Hypothetical as it may be, it would be of enormous help.
16. what I've read here and through all of the provided links
all new to me. I've seen brief mentions of a flight 1989 and "X" but not understood
where they fit in to the scheme of things. In "Crossing the Rubicon" the author talks about Promis soft wear and all it portends,
one of those things being the remote flying of a passenger plane. Shortly after finishing the book I ran across some articles
on the net questioning the veracity of flight 77, i.e., it was not AA 77 that went into the pentagon. I then bought "In Plane
Sight" and in it they question if any of the passenger planes, we think we saw, were in fact the planes that crashed that
day. I've always thought this a bogus premise because where are those passengers? where are those planes? Today is the first
time those question have been intelligently addressed for me and now I'm starting to understand where people are coming from
and going with their questions. The Omission Repost deliberately failed to address so many things including the near hijacking
that day of UA 23. Where are and who were those intended hijackers of UA 23? How come they have never been reported about
as the other 19 and the lone 20th have been? How come they haven't been "hunted down and brought to justice"? I am still in
a quandary as to the whereabouts of all those passengers from the downed planes of 9/11. If they were shuttled onto another
flight what became of them after that? I appreciate all the work you people are doing with respect to 9/11, Thank you all
Mike Ruppert first mentions Delta 1989 in his final chapter, "Summation: Ladies
and Gentlemen of the Jury." Ruppert notes that this chapter includes some speculation along with additional pieces of evidence.
The Clevelend/Flight 1989 story is extremely compelling and this was the first I ever heard of it.
Yet, I think it
is telling that Ruppert does not include this story in his main case. The fact is that there are much stronger, more glaring
omissions and lies to the 9/11 story. Such as: Why does the Commission not mention anything about WTC 7 collapsing or about
Sibel Edmonds testimony or about the ISI?? I am new to this board but not to 9/11 skepticism...I think it is important to
keep our minds focused and not to get too carried away with endless details. True understanding this issue does not come from
encyclopedic knowledge of the details, but from realizing and doing what must be done, once you see through the illusion.
a look at the new Rigorous Intuition for a clear-headed take on approaching the 9/11 issue:
WHY did WCPO wait 3 YEARS to retract this story. WCPO now claims that the story was factually
incorrect. Which facts? The article is filled with specific information and precise details. Did someone lie or did someone
tell the truth? The original article was removed from the WCPO website only a few hours after the report of its existence
was announced on national radio. Click Here to view original story captured on archive.org
Plane Lands In Cleveland;
Bomb Feared Aboard
Reported by: 9News Staff Web produced by: Liz Foreman 9/11/01 11:43:57 AM
767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may
have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White.
White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport,
and was evacuated.
United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did say how many people were aboard the flight.
United said it was also "deeply concerned" about another flight, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston
to Los Angeles.
On behalf of the airline CEO James Goodwin said: "The thoughts of everyone at United are with the
passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground who may have been involved.
is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights," he said.
Woody Box' article: The Cleveland Airport Mystery (google) but there is also
a thread about it. And keep in mind that till today there is no conclusive explanation to why Cleveland Airport was evacuated,
nor for the evacuation of Pittsburgh and Johnstown Aiport.
Update (06/21): WoodyBox found new witnesses, which point on two different
"quarantined" planes at Cleveland Hopkins (see "comments")
WoodyBox ("Flight 11 - The Twin Flight") (Mirror) new article
is yet another groundbreaking analysis. It appears, that the majority of 9/11 Researchers and the 9/11 family members,
who lost their loved ones, have to compile a new list of questions about an airport, which didn't receive much attention yet:
Cleveland Hopkins, Ohio. Among the disturbing new details are two flights, which apparently had been part of yet another
"mirror flight" scenario. "Both" got grounded in Ohio. One of them was Delta1989, the other one was identified as, most
shocking: "Flight 93"! But there are also many new questions about some "200 passengers" of that day...
200 passengers got lost on 9/11 - by Woody Box
Exclusive for INN Report -May 30
the chaos breaking out in the hours after the WTC and Pentagon attacks, between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m an airplane made an emergency
landing at Cleveland Hopkins Airport . Rumours were going around that it was hijacked or had a bomb on board. The FBI evacuated
the plane and searched it with bomb-sniffing dogs after the passengers had left. It turned out to be false alarm. The plane
- Delta flight1989 - was not hijacked, and there was no bomb.
However, a closer examination reveals a bunch of conflicting
statements concerning Delta 1989. Neither the moment of landing, nor the number of the passengers, nor the location of the
grounded plane is clear. For every aspect of the incident there are two different versions. Not one or three or four versions,
This article will prove that not one, but two planes made an emergency landing in Cleveland - in close succession.
The proof is based on local newspaper and radio reports from September 11th and 12th (mainly from the Akron Beacon Journal
and the Cleveland Plain Dealer), statements of eyewitnesses and internet postings in the morning of 9/11 (people were listening
to the radio and immediately submitted the breaking news to the net). One of the flights was indeed Delta 1989. We don't know
the identity of the other one, so we call it "Flight X"...
We start with a short summary of the events in Cleveland.
At 10 a.m., the airport was evacuated. Without doubt, this had to do with the rumours that a hijacked plane was going to land.
The passengers had to leave the airport but were not allowed to take their car. They had to walk or got a ride at the highway.
Busses were not allowed to leave the airport. People around the airport were told to go home. It was a very tense situation.
These facts are undisputed. http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php...
The pilot had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since one of the
passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone and ignored repeated flight attendant requests to stop using his cell phone
while in flight.
Why this guy was speaking on his cellphone at this altitude of
about 35000(?) feet? I think its impossible to manage this at this altitude. You discovered already, that Quirion and Guerette,
who witnessed Atta on Colgan Air, was also on Flight Delta 1989. Do you think that one of this two guys could have done
this suspicious activity? To simulate the cellphone calls of UA93? Maybe with satellite phone?
But I don't think Quirion and Guerrette were on board of Delta 1989. Their strange explanations
why they told the FBI about the Portland flight one day later - and not at Cleveland Airport immediately when they were interviewed
- suggests that they were onboard the mysterious Flight X.
29. Thought some light should be cast on the issue:
Edited on Sat Jul-29-06 12:22 PM by greyl
Traveling on Delta Flight 1989 on 9/11
(This was written by a friend
of mine and I find it interesting from a couple of different angles. I thank her for the permission to post it. As an aside,
the Delta flight 1989 she was on was initially thought to be flight 93 since they were very close in the sky at the time that
93 was hijacked. Her flight was the only 8am flight out of Boston bound for LA that was not hijacked. It was also a 767 and
full of fuel. Given discussions with some of the 9/11 skeptics/tinfoil-hat-types out there, I felt compelled to add some additional details and some comments from the author of this piece.)
and I and six other fellow employees were on the 8 am flight from Boston to Los Angeles on Tuesday, but we were on the Delta
flight 1989, the one out of three 8am flights departing Logan that did not get hijacked. Instead, we were forced to make an
emergency landing in Cleveland because there were reports that a bomb or hijacking was taking place on our plane. The pilot
had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since one of the passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone
and ignored repeated flight attendant requests to stop using his cell phone while in flight. Also, there was an irregularity
in the passenger manifest because there were two people (with the same middle eastern name) who were listed but only one aboard. http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/1989_9_11_tr...
John Doe II's research as presented in the OP is the most thorough oversight over Delta 1989 you can get. The 911myths.com
stuff with its poor sourcing simply lacks of meat. Actually, it looks like a skeleton.
There was something not in order
with Delta 1989. The same goes for Cleveland Airport.
Only problem your second quote is already quoted in the
OP so I'm not really sure what kind of light you wish to cast! The OPer used the term "red herring" in quotation marks.
In the OP he explains that he is refering to a quote from a Hearing. So where is your problem? Why do you consider the
five conclusive questions as red herrings? What does your first quote help to clarify any of the questions raised?
I'm abosultely convinced that you can manage to be even more specfic in why
your posting sheds any light on the raised questions which you (why?) called a "red herring" than only saying "context, context"....!