Your video, Emotional support Peacock turned away by United Airlines, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Two of the officers were fired https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/airplane-mode/two-officers-fired-after-doctor-dragged-united-airlines-flight-n811546

In those cases, they're being douchey.
I didn't read you to mean a perceived problem meant it wasn't a real problem, now I get you.

Children will be children, but can still be incredibly annoying to some, even if they're well behaved....like a baby on an airplane, it's often not the child's fault. I can support them thinking that all children are annoying (at times), and even communicating it to each other with, say, a knowing wink, but the open, blatant derision is uncalled for.....usually.

That said, there should be child free zones in public spaces imo. Just Tuesday we used our once a year passes to the United Airlines club in SFO to have a nice, quiet place to relax between long flights, and a family came in with two <5 year olds and instantly turned it into the loud, raucous environment everyone there paid to escape. Their children weren't being bad, just being loud children in a quiet place. That's the parent's being douchbags imo. Just as the childless shouldn't insist on no children in public, parents shouldn't insist they must be allowed to go everywhere. Don't take a baby to an adult movie.

Your video, If United Airlines was a video game...#UnitedAirlinesAssault, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

United Airlines Pilot: "FLYING IS A PRIVILEGE"

The Airlines were right in doing what they do.

Had this been at United Airlines, Jerry would not have gotten away with all this snarkiness so easily...

Jimmy Kimmel chimes in (the end bit of the video is the best)
https://youtu.be/HV28_ENzFog

Seems ALL reddit videos are currently United Airlines videos. A sampling.
Dog abuse https://youtu.be/qFfEngL2fj4
Dog death https://youtu.be/4VkyNQkAWh0
Kick off autistic child https://youtu.be/TqEZQxP1azM
United Breaks Guitars https://youtu.be/5YGc4zOqozo

United Airlines smashes $10,000 guitar has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

I did a little web search:

'Until tomorrow, folks in the San Fransisco area are able to enjoy Fleet Week 2010. From their website: “The mission of San Francisco Fleet Week Association (SFFWA) is to honor the dedication to duty and sacrifices of the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces and to conduct and offer disaster preparedness training.”

To help celebrate, United Airlines flew one of their Boeing 747-400′s by the Golden Gate bridge. Pretty frek’n sweet, if you ask me. Over at The News Blog for Bay Area Travellers, they explained they have heard negative feedback about the fly over. Some say it is too similar to 9/11 and others are asking why a private airline is at a military celebration. Oh please.

First off, this is nothing like 9/11, it is a celebration with a bunch of different aircraft (including military) flying over the bay. If seeing a bunch of FA-18′s can fly by the bridge, why can’t a Boeing 747? Secondly, yes, United is not part of the military, but that doesn’t mean they can’t help to celebrate what the military does for our country.'
(http://www.airlinereporter.com/tag/united-airlines/)

Delta better look at United Airlines.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'delta airlines, first class, upgrade, downgrade, best buy' to 'united airlines, first class, upgrade, downgrade, best buy' - edited by shuac

Your first quotation is taken from a passage that explains that the supposedly suspicious trading activity was thoroughly investigated and found, ultimately, to be innocuous. In light of this, it's difficult to see how it could do anything other than refute the argument for foreknowledge-based trading. Here's the quotation in more context:

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options- investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price-surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10-highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.

*1*
I read the article on scrambling. Note that the article itself states that scrambling is MUCH more common AFTER 9/11:
"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said."

Same article:
" "We considered it at that time to be a possible hijacking," air traffic manager Glenn Michael said.

The FAA notified NORAD 15 minutes later; three minutes after that, NORAD was told United Airlines Flight 175 had been hijacked. (Note: later sources say 18 minutes.)

The first two military interceptors, Air Force F-15 Eagles from Otis Air Force Base in Massachusetts, scrambled airborne at 8:52 a.m., too late to do anything about the second jet heading for the Trade Center or a third heading toward the Pentagon. "

The Norad site doesn't convince me of anything malevolent - they screwed up, or didn't hurry (which, in itself, is a kind of screw up in this situation).

The fact that entire squadrons of planes weren't scrambled isn't a big shock - oh no, they didn't scramble from 'the most logical base.'

Generally speaking, you only have a pair of jets ready to go, and not necessarily at all bases. They sent up the first available planes. It's not like the jetliners can shoot back; sending up more jets wouldn't serve much purpose.

As for the tiresome, "oooh, they only flew at 25% of top speed," three things:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15
Maximum speed: Mach 1.2, 900 mph at low altitude; Mach 2.5, 1,650 mph at high altitude (1,450 km/h / 2,655 km/h)
2. with the afterburner on, a jet fighter will shred jetfuel like a grunt about to be deployed to Iraq will drink booze
3. max range of planes is based on full fuel load; we don't know (A) if the planes had fuel fueld loads, and (B) the pilots didn't know how far they would be chasing the jetliners! (note that article about Stewart has a running theme: escorts kept swapping out b/c of need to refuel!)

*2*
Debris spread: depends on how you crash. 'Lawn dart', or skid?
I really don't see what hte issue is? Do they believe there should be a larger or smaller debris field in the case of a shoot-down?

You suggest that an 8 mile spread should be a cause for concern. After reading the claims, I started to wonder if an 8 mile spread wouldn't be more consistent with a shoot-down than a regular crash, but concluded that either is possible.

Here'a 1km debris field crash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_981

That satisfies me that it's entirely possible.

Wiki has several lists - if you're not happy with that example, you can scour some more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disasters#Air_disasters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:In-flight_airliner_structural_failures

I really don't see any evidence to convince me not to think it came down through the efforts of the people onboard.

*****
This "wanttoknow" site is rather awkwardly designed; I can't tell if the documents are supposed to support or refute their claims. I mean, if the information is hidden there's a cover-up. The screw-ups are pretty well known, though. And they stem from the fact that US Intel had a 50+ year mission to make sure that there would be "no more Pearl Harbors," which was modified to "no atomic Pearl Harbors".

Their mission had not fundamentally shifted until after 9/11.
*****

*3*
And as for the President not being evacuated?
Yes, I can explain that, and I'll go beyond incompetence/panic.
Before doing that, I'll just explain what the incompetence argument means: you're dealing with an Administration which had a YEAR to plan for what to do in Iraq. They could've prepared more troops - there was no rush! - and handily had a robust force in place to secure all those weapons caches that the IEDs are coming from, not to mention to prevent the initial looting and all the other chaos.

Argument #2:
Dubya could've said, "sorry kids, gotta go." But he sat there like a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming 18-wheeler.

Yeah, his agents could've been like, "go go go", but this isn't Red Alert 2 (great game, btw), but real life. If the C-in-C is staying put - and he's sitting in front of TV cameras - you're putting your career on the line if you're going to dart in and drag him out.

It was up to Dubya to move, and he didn't.

Besides, if you want to talk fighter escort, it would be likelier for the local Air National Guard to scramble to protect him than another site in the country, so you've got an additional layer of security right there, although I admit that's little more than idle speculation over classified security protocols.

Man, fisking takes forever.

btw, sterling comment as usual, deathcow.