Posted on 12/05/2009 2:56:13 AM PST by Cindy
SNIPPET: ""After conducting additional research into this situation, we have verified, according to flight manifests (legally binding documents) that the individual that allegedly created a first-hand account of events on-board AirTran Airways Flight 297, a Theodore Petruna, was never actually on-board the flight," AirTran said in a statement, which the AJC was the first to obtain.
An e-mail from a Tedd Petruna, which he told the AJC via a Facebook message Friday was intended only for friends and family, made the rounds online this week after one of those friends apparently forwarded it to others." I SNIPPET: "Neither Petruna nor Hackemack responded to requests from the AJC to speak to them Friday evening."
(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...
So how do they know that he used that name? Don’t trust the airlines, they will fly and die just to avoid lawsuits from Muzzies.
For pete sakes, this is an UPDATE.
What update?
In the absence of Petruna being willing to front up and prove he was on the plane, it seems awfully likely he was just trying to bignote himself to friends and family.
Then how is it other people on the flight have identified him in Debbie Schlussel’s article posted her on Fr yesterday?
If I, without much coffee, am reading this right; they don’t deny the chaplain was named Robinson was there, and what the AJC reports is a point by point smackdown of Petrona’s account uses very specific language, almost like a lawyer would write. It would take someone with great courage of conviction to come out and verify that there was a problem on that flight. Remember what happened to the woman in the restaurant down south who described the alleged would-be terrorists (who IIRC laughed and joked about either 9/11 or a futre event), and then was called a racist in the media?
So, let's see. A man is able to buy a ticket, board a plane under English instructions, operate a cell phone but yet doesn't understand a simple instruction to turn off his phone?
You'll also notice they don't say what language was used to "ask him to leave the plane".
I don't buy it. I am not sure I buy the whole story but something about the language used in this story is not ringing true.
Probably. But what's clear and evidently not in dispute is that there was a serious incident--serious enough to turn around the plane, disembark passengers, and replace the flight crew. Hardly indicative of a Spanish language barrier over a camera.
Petruna is, essentially, a side story. Certainly, the truth of where he was is pertinent to the details of his "eyewitness" account, but one can dismiss him altogether and still be left with an evidently critical situation that is not explained by the scenario painted by AirTran via the AJC.
Why isn’t he willing to answer questions? Anyone being this evasi9ve has to expect their credibility to suffer.
Not everyone wants publicity or notoriety
“”Why isn’t he willing to answer questions? “”
Wasn’t it reported that he was told to “clam up” by his employer NASA? A threat to fire him, rescinded and then that warning? It wouldn’t be unheard of for a government employee to be told to shut up.
I’m a lawyer and parse words for a living. For instance, I knew Tiger’s original statement was an admission to the affairs because it called the rumors “irresponsible” rather than “false.”
This air tran update is also very odd. Notice it says the woman “believed” it was spanish. Using “believe” makes the sentence entirely vague and meaningless in a court of law. I wonder also if the interviewee used the word “believe” or if the interviewer did. In this day and age why would anyone not recognize Spanish? Are you telling me there was no one on the plane who could speak spanish? No one could google on an iphone for “off” in spanish? The captains could not radio ahead and ask the control tower for the translation? Lastly, why would the two dudes not get back on the plane to reach their destination if this was a simple miscomunication?
“”I’m a lawyer and parse words for a living. For instance, I knew Tiger’s original statement was an admission to the affairs because it called the rumors “irresponsible”””
Kinda like Obama using “irresponsible” for those opposing his plans?
As far as the story in the AJC about the Air Tran flight - I don’t trust that newspaper at all. It’s not even allowed to be thrown in our driveway. I don’t know anyone with any functioning brain that reads the trash put out by them. I don’t watch local news from Atlanta so perhaps that gal has shown up to be interviewed and I would be interested in knowing more about her. She certainly wasn’t the only eyewitness.
Everyone disputing the original account of Tedd is hanging on to what that one woman on the plane says she saw and heard. Air Tran records could certainly be wrong as to him missing his flight in OH and being too late to catch the plane to TX.
Canada Free Press says they had the story 2 days after it happened and refused to publish it until they did an investigation. They published it this week. The Chaplain is wrong also? He wasn’t an eyewitness but he did talk to others who left the flight.
Something stinks and I don’t think it’s with the original account issued by Tedd. Understanding and seeing political correctness in all its glory today, why should we be surprised that it wasn’t reported nationwide?
That is the historical problem with news media, compounded by the growth of the anonymous internet. The truth will never be known but the agenda is promoted. Still the account serves a vital purpose in reminding us that the threat of terrorism still exists and that vigilance is still priority one.
Nancy witness (”NW”): the passenger I saw spoke Arabic.
Reporter (”R”): Do you speak Arabic
NW: No, but I’ve heard it before and am familiar with it.
R: But you can’t be 100 percent sure.
NW: I think so, but I guess not. I don’t speak it.
R: Well if you can’t be 100 percent it couldve been another language.
NW: I guess.
R: So you believe it could have been another language?
NW: Sure, but it sounded Arabic
R: Could’ve even been Spanish, right?
NW: Anythings possible I guess
Story: The witness believed it was Spanish.
Yep. The wording pegged the spin meter for me too, especially given AirTran's earlier statement which never disputed that Petruna was on the plane, saying merely that his account was "in conflict" on "numerous" or "several" points. (Working from memory here.) AirTran's statements--and the AJC accounts--curiously avoid the issue of disembarking passengers, referring only to cell phone man and his translator. The only way we know about the rest of his group is the sudden mention of them reboarding along with a new crew. No explanation. They all just materialized.
Bottom line for me: the original crew left the craft and refused to reboard. No need to even consider the Petruna letter at this juncture.
Rather than let memory serve, I found the quote of Airtran’s original statement on Petruna’s letter, via KHOU 11 News in Houston.
“A number of the allegations included in the article posted by Mr. Petruna conflict with the statements obtained by the flight crew.”
http://www.khou.com/home/AirTran-e-mail-stirs-up-Internet-firestorm-78474802.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.