Additional Details About Delta Flight 1989 on 9/11

My thoughts about the day can be found at 9/11/2001 Thoughts. A detailed timeline of the events of the day at 9/11/2001 Timeline. I've also collected some pictures of 9/11.

This page posts some additional details about Delta flight 1989 which a friend of mine was on. I also have scanned in her scrapbook from the time. At the time I posted the flight 1989 pages just a point of information. To give people an interesting and human side of 9/11. Now I add these details mostly due to threats and accusations by 9/11 skeptics and tinfoil-hat-types who believe that flight 93 landed in Cleveland instead of going into the ground in Pennsylvania. Feel free to contact me respectfully if you'd like my friend to add any additional details to this report. Also, here's a fascinating account from the Flight 1989 flight-deck.

Some Quick Clarifications

1. Although 1989 was scheduled to leave Boston/Logan at 0800, FAA records have it leaving closer to 0825.
2. FAA reports have Flight 1989 landing in Cleveland around 1010 which was after all 4 hijacked planes had gone down, and the South Tower had collapsed.
3. The 9/11 Commission report says that Flight 1989 had flown past Cleveland and was over Toledo when it was ordered to return to Cleveland to land.

My Friend's Answers to some Questions

1. S/he confirmed that the pilot gave them permission to make one call while they were on the plane. S/he remembers it as being while they were still in the air while her initial letter says that it was after they landed. Either there were 2 calls allowed, their memory (5 years later) differs from what happened, or s/he was incorrect in the initial letter. Remember that s/he wasn't, at the time, writing for posterity but to reassure family and friends. S/he doesn't remember what time s/he was able to make a call(s) that was but for reason thinks it was closer to 1000. It was around the time the first tower collapsed. That was one piece of the information they got while still in the air. They were later able to make more calls after they had landed in Cleveland.
2. They were told to make one call but people might have snuck more. S/he remembers thinking that it was a very inappropriate joke when someone mentioned one of the WTC towers collapsing.
3. Although they shared what information they had with other passengers, at the time they did not realize that the flights that hit the WTC towers originated in Boston so didn't realize until later that it could have been them.
4. In questioning them in 2006, s/he recalls that there was an interminable wait on the plane until agents could come to the plane to take their luggage and them off onto the tarmac. Once they were inside a building they were individually interrogated s/he remembers specifically asking an FBI guy if they could call their [family] and he said okay. They put the agent on the phone to say hi to [them].
5. I asked them where they were when they we rerouted to Cleveland. S/he is not sure but think that 1989 was Southeast of Cleveland at the time. It was "a good 45 minutes at least" after we were told we would have to make an emergency landing in Cleveland that they finally did. It is unsure whether this was in response to the FAA halting all flights at 0949 or due to their being confused with Flight 93 which was happening closer to 0930 - 0935. The 9/11 Commission Report states that 1989 was closer to Toledo which would have been West. S/he is most likely mistaken since the FAA would have the data given that flight 1989 never turned off their transponder.
6. S/he said that they did not see any fighters escorting them to Cleveland and in talking to the pilot afterwards in the FBI interrogation line, he was "pleasant and forthcoming" and did not mention any escort -- which, of course, doesn't mean that there wasn't any.
7. I've asked them for some pictures of the day.

My Comments About 1989

1. Most of the confusion around flight 93 and 1989 was due to the fact that the hijackers on 93 had disabled the transponder that gives air-traffic control the plane's number and altitude (possibly more information). Without this information they were a blip on a 2 dimensional screen. 93 supposedly came within a couple of miles of 1989 before turning and heading for DC which confused ATC.
2. The skeptics are responding to a piece by one Liz Foreman who was working for WCPO in Cincinnati the morning of 9/11. She published an erroneous report from the AP that 93 had landed in Cleveland. Much of this may have been due to the Mayor of Cleveland being off his rocker and holding press conferences that day spouting incorrect rumors. Much of the fervor has been due to the fact that WCPO removed the story after they published it citing falsehoods in it so now people say that it is a government cover-up. In any case, Ms. Foreman's got details about the mistakes made by her and WCPO on her blog that I found also on the Internet archive site.
3. Given the mistakes I heard from newscasters that morning, I have no doubt that this error happened. I remember accounts that there was a car bombing at the State Department, that cell phone systems were down because they all routed through NYC, and that we had gone to DEFCON 5 -- all false.
4. One question I've been asked is why the Mayor cared about flight 93 -- why did he give the press conference. My response is why did I give blood that day when I should have know that the Red Cross was collecting too much and would end up burning 75% of it. It was a strange day filled with passion, confusion, and helplessness. I'm sure it was not Mr. White nor Ms. Foreman's most lucid moments.
5. I've found a copy of an article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer on 9/12/2001 which talks about 1989 and explains some of the misstatements from 9/11.
6. Here's a great story (local copy) put out by the Cleveland Free Times in response to all of the 9/11 myths. It interviewed by source as well as others quoted by the tin foil hat types.
7. Here's another great page about the Flight 93/1989 confusion from 911myths.com
8. Here's a fascinating account from the Flight 1989 flight-deck.
9. Here's a USA Today article about 9/11 that talks about 1989. I've got a scan of an original in the scrapbook.
10. I have no idea about flight 89 that is mentioned in some of the 9/11 testimony nore why Col. Alan Scott states that flight 1989 landed at 0947 instead of 1010. He actually talks about flight 89 which is either short for 1989 or another flight that I know nothing about. Col. Scott might have been listing the time that 1989 left Boston airspace or when they were ordered to land as opposed to when they actually did. If he was quoting NORAD times then there may be errors. Two planes including 1989 were reported to NORAD as hijacked incorrectly. In addition, the FAA did not communicate that flight 77 was hijacked until 28 minutes after the transponder was turned off. NORAD was certainly working with a lot of faulty data that day and Scott may just be quoting from it.
11. One of the things that may me skeptical of conspiracy theories like 9/11 is the number of people that needed to be in collusion to pull it off. This implies that hundreds, maybe thousands, of people needed to conspire to make the events of 9/11 happen. The more people the higher likelihood that someone would change their mind, wanted to make millions with a tell-all book, had a confession on their deathbed, got pissed off at a spouse and decided to get back at them by spilling the beans, etc.. It is hard to keep secrets, as the Bush administration is now finding out, even in organizations designed to keep secrets. Adding the fact that so many civilians needed to be in on the big 9/11 hoax this makes the chances if them pulling it off very, very remote.
12. What it is hard for all of us to remember now that we are looking back on the events of 9/11 with some resolution and some semblance of clarity, is that at the time confusion reigned across much of the command and control infrastructure in the US. A plane had not been hijacked in the US for 27 years and the FAA and US air defense were just not prepared for it. So much of our defense systems were outward facing to track incoming aircraft and missiles instead of watching civilian national carriers. So many, many mistakes, misrepresentations, and bad reports were made on 9/11 that it's no wonder there is tons of fodder for the skeptics. It is unfortunate, however, that the skeptics continue to question the events of 9/11, usually with little to no cause, questioning in effect the last moments of so many brave innocent people and bringing, I expect, unnecessary distress to their families. It is fine to question the official reports but you need good solid evidence before posting "facts". Relying on rumors and posts off the internet is just not enough.
13. If you are going to be skeptical of published reports then you need to be equally skeptical of the rumors and contradictory stories.

Free Spam Protection   Android ORM   Simple Java Zip   JMX using HTTP   Great Eggnog Recipe