PDA

View Full Version : UAF 923 diverted to Boston after passenger confrontation...



AssassinFromHell
16-Aug-2006, 02:50 PM
Developing story on CNN.com: United Airlines Flight 923 from London's Heathrow Airport to Washington was diverted to Boston after a confrontation between passengers.

When will the craziness end?

Adrenochrome
16-Aug-2006, 02:53 PM
When will the craziness end?

A long time from now. :(

AssassinFromHell
16-Aug-2006, 03:03 PM
A long time from now. :(

Unfortunately :(

Update on the situation from CNN.com...


BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- A flight from London to Washington, D.C. was diverted to Boston Wednesday morning after the pilot declared an emergency because of a passenger disturbance, the airline said.

United Flight 923 with 182 passengers and 12 crew members landed safely at Boston's Logan International Airport, United spokesman Brandon Borrman said.

A Logan spokesman said three passengers had a confrontation with the flight crew. State Police took control of the plane after it landed. All the passengers were being taken off the plane and their carry-on luggage was being checked, said spokesman Phil Orlandella.

Adrenochrome
16-Aug-2006, 03:05 PM
Unfortunately :(

Update on the situation from CNN.com...
BOSTON (AP) - A flight from London to Washington, D.C. was diverted to Boston Wednesday morning after the pilot declared an emergency because of a passenger disturbance, the airline said.

A female passenger aboard United Flight 923 had Vaseline, a screw driver, matches and a note referencing al-Qaida, according to Phil Orlandella, spokesman for Boston's Logan International Airport.

He said the flight was escorted to Boston by two fighter jets.

United Flight 923 with 182 passengers and 12 crew members landed safely at Logan, United spokesman Brandon Borrman said.

Passengers were seen coming off the plane on the tarmac and being loaded onto a bus. Orlandella said their carry-on luggage was being checked.

Last week, British authorities said they foiled a terror plot to blow up trans-Atlantic flights from London to the United States.

AssassinFromHell
16-Aug-2006, 03:11 PM
Well we foiled another nutjob attempt to raise unfathomable hell. At least we're nailing this guys this time around. Kudos to Britain for last week. Kudos to us for this week. Hopefully all future attempts are foiled.

Trancelikestate
16-Aug-2006, 04:04 PM
yeah, it prob wont end until it's like your an inmate when you fly. maybe we should look into building some maglev trains for domestic travel? they can go bout 350 miles and hour :p but seriously it's gonna be like conair.

MikePizzoff
16-Aug-2006, 04:44 PM
Why is it that this time we can manage to get fighter jets to escort the plane but on 9/11 fighter jets weren't even deployed? In fact, NORAD was told to stand down.

bassman
16-Aug-2006, 08:47 PM
Why is it that this time we can manage to get fighter jets to escort the plane but on 9/11 fighter jets weren't even deployed? In fact, NORAD was told to stand down.

Uh oh....another conspiracy theorist?

MikePizzoff
16-Aug-2006, 10:24 PM
Uh oh....another conspiracy theorist?

:D You should know me by now.

MinionZombie
16-Aug-2006, 11:25 PM
For anyone who didn't know, turns out it was just some woman having a claustrophobia attack, all that hoobajiflib about vaseline, matches and weird writing was all crap so it seems. See, this is what happens when you take away people's Xanax on flights. :rockbrow:

coma
17-Aug-2006, 01:01 AM
Why is it that this time we can manage to get fighter jets to escort the plane but on 9/11 fighter jets weren't even deployed? In fact, NORAD was told to stand down.

Uh oh....another conspiracy theorist?

That is a questionfollowed by a fact . I see no theory or supposition.
Oh snap!

Wooley
17-Aug-2006, 03:53 PM
Why is it that this time we can manage to get fighter jets to escort the plane but on 9/11 fighter jets weren't even deployed? In fact, NORAD was told to stand down.

Uh, because prior to 9/11 we weren't worried about suicidal religious nutjobs using civilian airliners as cruise missiles, and therfore didn't need fighter planes ready to shoot them down? And show me where in the official record when NORAD was told to stand down.

bassman
17-Aug-2006, 03:59 PM
That is a questionfollowed by a fact . I see no theory or supposition.
Oh snap!

"oh snap!"?:rockbrow:


Show me a credible source stating that it's a fact and I'll take back the "conspiracy theorist" statement. Oh yeah! That's right....it's not fact. Just an idea that popped into some nutjobs mind and he knew people will believe anything thrown in their faces.

coma
17-Aug-2006, 05:11 PM
"oh snap!"?:rockbrow:


Show me a credible source stating that it's a fact and I'll take back the "conspiracy theorist" statement. Oh yeah! That's right....it's not fact. Just an idea that popped into some nutjobs mind and he knew people will believe anything thrown in their faces.
The Oh snap was a joke, dude.
And I heard about the stand down from sources I usually pretty much trust, but I just looked for 20 minutes for my own sources and couldn't find anything credible. It may be out there, but I couldn't find it. Or it may be total bunk. I'm usually a total skeptic and don't go in for any kind of conspiracy thories.
Though Nixons enemies list, the Pentagon PApers, The bogusnesss of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and COINTELPRO were all "ridiculous conspiracy theories" at one time and they all thrned out to be true.

p2501
17-Aug-2006, 07:47 PM
Uh, because prior to 9/11 we weren't worried about suicidal religious nutjobs using civilian airliners as cruise missiles, and therfore didn't need fighter planes ready to shoot them down? And show me where in the official record when NORAD was told to stand down.


what he said.

Zombie-A-GoGo
17-Aug-2006, 11:25 PM
How about this today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5261456.stm

Good times...