CSPAN Help?

I got this email recently. Anyone know how to find this? Any "C-SPAN junkies" out there?

Maybe a way to contact Hastings or Conyers?


No one seems to have caught this.
After 911 I was watching C-span. They had a brief statement by one of the black congressmen, either hasting's or Conyers ( I think). He made it as he was leaving a hearing.
He stated that his daughter, who worked in the WTC, was warned by a co-worker not to go into work the next day. He stated that when the FBI investigated the woman, her apartment had been stripped even the carpets had been removed.
Nothing was ever said about this again.
I know there are C-Span junkies who record eveything on the channel. Hopefully you can find the video clip of this statement. It has troubled me for a very long time.
Thank You.

One should never open an e-mail from an
unknown entity.
As a consequence of your irrational impulse of late
to whimsically open each and ever e-mail received,
has probably caused your compter to become
infected with an insidious Trojan Horse Virus.

Abdullah

snopes.com

I find it helpful if I am in doubt.

I think the previous post was either sarcasm or an attempt at humor.

Because of my 9/11 timeline, I get emails all the time from people making claims of unique knowledge - I saw planes flying over NYC in a weird way on 9/11 and the like. Usually there's nothing I can do since I'm not a reporter and not in a position to verify or refute.

However, for this one it seems one could figure out which congressperson it is and then ask their office easily enough without breaking a sweat.

Here's a follow up:

"The best I can do is a description. He was tall with a grey beard. I think it was Hastings. He was older, so that rules out the young men. He was slim.
A search of those with daughters should narrow down the field. Of course a daughter working in the WTC at the time of the attack should be news somewhere."


Does this fit with what anyone knows of black congressmen?

He has a white beard, older, has two daughters and one son. I don't consider him that tall. He is on the Terrorism Subcommittee.

http://alceehastings.house.gov/

Conyer's usually has a mustache, but I haven't seen him with a beard, I don't consider him tall either, both are average height. Conyer's has two sons, who are still children.

http://www.house.gov/conyers/

Possible others, list of all older black congressman I can think of
(there are no black senators, pretty sad state of affairs, I'm hoping for Barrack Obama to change that, if he wins, he will be the fifth black senator in all of US history)

Major Owens from New York is older, wears a mustache, definitely not slim, has a step daughter.

Charles Rangel from New York is older, wears a mustache, I wouldn't consider him slim, has a daughter Alicia Rangel, who works for BBDO advertising in New York. As far as I can tell their offices were not in or near the WTC.

Ed Towns from New York, older but doesn't look it, doesn't wear beard or mustache, not really slim or tall, has daughter named Deidra.

Danny Davis from Illinois, is older, has a beard, but has no daughters.

http://www.house.gov/davis/index.htm

Bobby Rush from Illinois, sometimes wears a graying beard, not sure on children

http://www.house.gov/rush/

Bobby Scott from Virginia, older wears a mustache, not sure on children

John Lewis from Georgia, is older, wears a mustache, no daughters

Bennie Thompson from Mississippi, older, wears beard, not really slim, has a daughter Benda Lonne, don't believe she lives in New York.

It's possible that what the viewer saw, might have been a congressman reporting a constituents story.

Patrick Schoeb

A bit off-topic (sorry, Paul, just a little bit):

I am very interested in the CNN program on the morning of 9/11, especially between 10 am and 11 am.

It is said that CNN reported a fifth hijacking for a short time. Is that true?

There must be people who have recorded CNN this morning.

He knew two airliners had struck the World Trade Center, another had hit the Pentagon, a fourth had crashed in Pennsylvania and a fifth -- a Korean Airlines jet with 200 passengers aboard -- was out of radio contact in the northern Pacific and headed for Alaskan airspace, signaling the universal "7500" radio transponder code for a hijacking.

He knew the U.S. military had scrambled F-15 fighter jets to intercept it, and he knew the military thought the Korean airliner could be headed for the Valdez oil terminal. He knew there were nearly 5 million gallons of oil in the terminal's massive storage tanks. Three tankers were hitched to the berths at Valdez, their bellies taking on crude oil at the rate of 100,000 barrels an hour.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/terror/aftermath/1088869

Patrick Schoeb

I collected some forum postings from the day of 9/11. Some say, the fifth plane was heading to Camp David, others say, it was shot down at an "unknown location", and some say it was a United flight. Noone mentions a Korean Airlines jet.

But that's why I would like to see the CNN broadcast on the 5th plane on 9/11 (not the fifth planes emerging days after the attacks).

Many people wonder why the plane seemed to vanish from the news at about 11 a.m. The broadcast didn't deny its existence, it just didn't come up again.

I didn't wake up until around 11:00 on Sept 11, so can't help there. They did briefly report the Korean Flight on one of the News channels that day, but I think this happened in the afternoon. If I remember correctly it came on the news a bit over an hour after I started watching, so maybe 1:00 central time.

Patrick Schoeb

It was last time mentioned by Col. Scott on May 23 at the "independent" commission, Boston FAA called it being missing at 9:27.
But be aware of the Nashua Gazette news of the next day which stated that Boston FAA had ONLY ONE ATC in charge of handling the two WTC machines. Which makes the guy being responsible for at least three losses of heavies - Egypt air was his one too. And delta may be.

Hope they sorted him out now :-))

Here's a link to his testimony
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm

This plane lands in Cleveland at 9:47, so is considered missing for 20 minutes, unfortunately he doesn't say if they had transponder on or why it was reported missing?

so at 9:27 its reported missing
at 9:41 its reported as a possible hijacking
at 9:47 it lands in Cleveland

Currently Flight 89 is a daily New York to Los Angeles Flight
http://dps1.travelocity.com/dparflifo.ctl?aln_name=dl&flt_num=89

What was the case on Sept 11? why does Scott say Boston FAA? I need to find my OAG book for 2001.

If it went from Boston to Cleveland it would have been possibly in the same vicinity as flight 93 while it was missing?

Patrick Schoeb

First, the flight number is wrong. The plane in question was not Delta 89, but Delta 1989. It was scheduled to depart from Boston at 8 a.m. with destination Los Angeles, so this was the third flight BOS-LAX on 9/11.

Here's the statement of a passenger of Delta 1989:

http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/travel_story.html

You will see that Scott's testimony

so at 9:27 its reported missing
at 9:41 its reported as a possible hijacking
at 9:47 it lands in Cleveland

has not much to do with Delta 1989:

It never was reported missing (transponder was never off);
It never was reported hijacked (at most, a possible bomb on board);
It didn't land at 9:47.

I quote the passenger:

Just after we landed, the pilot gave us permission to make one very brief telephone call before we were banned from any further telephone use. The sixty or so passengers were thus able to gather some alarming details of the unbelievable fates of the other two LA-bound planes and the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, the suicide bombing of the Pentagon as well as reports of other plane crashes in PA and LA (LA proved unfounded) before we were cut off from any further communication.

So the landing must have taken place after 10 a.m. because the passengers learn via cellphone about the collapsed WTC tower (9:59) and the crash of UA 93 (10:03).

If you consult Paul's timeline, you will see that it indeed landed in Cleveland at 10:10. Or take this link:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-08-12-hijacker-daytwo_x.htm

So Scott is talking nuts, obviously. Maybe if he is forced to speak under oath, his memory works better.

Since 89 is a daily scheduled NY to LA afternoon flight, these usually maintain their flight number over time for the convenience of regular business passengers.

Here's a link for anyone, on the account Woody references
http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/travel_story.html

So it seems these two Flights communications were confused with each other?

So why does Scott say Flight 89 and get the times so wrong,

it seems obvious from the USA Today Story that it was marked as suspicious or a possible target a little after 9:00 this would have been by Boston FAA(that was my other problem with the Scott account,I couldn't see why it would be Boston FAA who would report it missing at 9:27, if it ended up in Cleveland just 20 minutes later). It would have been marked as hijacked at around 9:22 when the radio communication about the bomb from 93 was heard but thought to come from 1989. If they were suspicious at 9:00ish, wouldn't they want to get some interceptors up and on it's tail? If they did then they should have had no problem reaching Flight 93.

Woody, in the USA Today story it mentions a Midwest Express Flight that temporarily disappeared over W. Virginia, do you know what Flight number that was?


Patrick Schoeb

It is not my fault. I do not mix it up, I just refer.

1) Interesting personal story about landing in Cleveland. Again the "whens" would be interesting. Why? because

2. Cleveland ATCC was fully evacuated. even when we take into account that this unprecedented and idiotic evacuation -it seems only to be done to get witnesses away from the sreens - did not bother the atcs at the airport itself, it is concerning our Delta. Why? because

3. Our hero the only lasting ATC Stacey Taylor (we can hear a mans voice on the alleged tapes, but who cares about gender when the homeland urgently needs faked tapes ...), so this shemale does not speak about any delta flight. Heshe talks with UA93 ("we have a bomb on board"), with the executive 956 (my guess: it was one of warren buffets jets), an American 1060 and ---- a United 1989 (or989), but for sure I heard "United" and "89". To make things worse

4. We know that the airspace should be empty at that time but was not. There wer no starts anymore since one hour, all flights were ordered out of that region since 30 minutes, and the nationwide shutdown was just ordered in these minutes. So it made sense for the Delta flight to land anyway, with or without bomb. but it makes no sense at all that around UAL93 there are so many planes except Delta1989 - which was really there and which was going to land, but which was not mentioned on the tape or referred to in wrong terms ("United").

I feel a little bit helpless. I could mention the C-130 too and the small white plane, but I do not want to make this thread a UAL93-thread.

I didn't know Scott's testimony and was a bit surprised, mildly formulated.

Delta 1989 landed in Cleveland at 10:10 and was "quarantined", i.e. the passengers had to stay 2,5 hours in the plane before the FBI came and evacuated them and searched the plane for a bomb with dogs.

How would you feel if you have to stay on a plane for two and a half hours with a suspected bomb? Why was it not evacuated immediately?

This is not the only weird thing about delta 1989, but it's too late now, maybe I start a thread tomorrow on the "strange case of delta 1989".

One last question: Do you know the exact time when the Cleveland airport was evacuated?

the good one is about the quarantine: my feeling would be bad, i.e.. But it is not enough to draw any conclusion because you can easily explain it in different ways.

Not so good is: ": Do you know the exact time when the Cleveland airport was evacuated?"

No there is no exact time, but I never said the airport was evacuated and not the airport tower, too. I said: the ARTCC. This Control Center is NOT identical with the tower and its radar. It may be situated far away from the airport, like the ARTCC in Nashua,NH is not on Logan, although it has the naming "Boston". The towers do the start and landing, the ATCCS the long-distance. Cleveland has its own homepage - it is the biggest of the world - not the homepage, the center.
http://www.faa.gov/ats/aglzob/What.htm
click on "facility of the year" and there "professionalism" and you get their story. Stacey herself had an appearance in one of the radio shows one year later, maybe I can find the link.

Again I regret that my book is not available in English.

I mixed up Cleveland airport and Cleveland Center (it's in Oberlin west of Cleveland, isn't it?).

Both airport and center were evacuated, and both cases are interesting.

This is an interesting discussion, but I have to go to bed now.:-)

woody

When did they determine for sure that Flight 77 was the one that hit the Pentagon and when did they start reporting that?

Flight 77 seems to have completely disappeared off radar in W Virginia near Ohio only to be picked up again just outside DC. I don't think anyone could have been sure if was Flight 77 right away, so maybe for awhile they might still have thought it could be somewhere else, and Flight 93 went down a little after 10:00, but it probably took awhile for the media to have an idea what happened. So after the Pentagon crash, the Media might have felt there were still two planes still hijacked.

Also from Paul Thompson's Timeline there were rumors that 77 might have exploded in midair when at first it couldn't be found on radar.

"During the confusion, rumors circulated that Flight 77 might have exploded in midair. It wasn't until 9:24 a.m. that the FAA alerted the military that the plane was heading for Washington."

http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story

Patrick Schoeb