Interesting stuff!

isn't reliable and we need a better source.

Last edited Mon Jun 16, 2014, 06:39 AM - Edit history (1)

Sounda like Hillary would've supported this. She should run on a unified ticket with Jeb Bush. Those two similar candidates could join forces. No other candidates or opposition needed. Just those two families and their staff sharing power as has been the case already. Yukkk

Don't give them ideas!

Only the willfully obtuse denied (and still deny!) what was brazenly clear.

Despite all evidence to the contrary.

But it is still wonderful to remind them of what they said a year ago, and what is released today.

Nobody could say that Morales wasn't made to land with a straight face and keep credibility, thought they tried. Look at the link I have below. It is just as funny now as it was then - and now it is twice as ludicrous.

INDEED I DO

the way they twisted and turned and attempted to subvert the facts. Will one of them venture into here after all of the "Ha Ha you are full of it" posts that were made 11 months ago, when suddenly, it is proven as fact?

Oh wait. I forgot. The WaPo is not a credible source. Nor is the AP.

so, no

may I add that Enrique's response: TOO MANY U.S. AMERICANS DON'T HAVE MAPS, AND SUCH AS - one of my favorite DU posts of all time

That whole thread was jam packed with hilarity

And all the rationalization of why it was just an ATC problem that made them land...it was kind of funny if you think about it.

Now here we are, less than a year later, and ... as we all surmised from the get-go it was bullshit.

that they were forced to land. In the reality based community we understand that the US has no control over crabs and the Putin lovers are just lying. Crabs cause planes to land quite often.

Let him get all those tentacles around Pres. Morales's plane and there's no telling what could happen.

to back up these suggestions that certain DUers might be less than straightforward or even less forthcoming about their mistaken views?

I'd love to have a web site that took every pronouncement that someone made 1, 2, 3 years ago and match it to reality - or to their newly revised view of reality.

The original request was from from the Bolivian plane was for a variation of flight plan due to a mechanical problem. Italy, France and Spain refused to allow that variation, probably due to airspace limitations or bureaucratic ineptitude. The plane landed in Austria and a search was requested, something I have since found was normal practice in cases like this because of the faint chance of hostage/hijacking. A few police officers walked down the aisle of the aircraft.

I don't know why the WP is rehashing this falsehood - but it is a falsehood.

Now you can get back to your conspiracy theory.

...just for Morales' jet.



That is some imagination you have there.

and so it goes.

There was a problem with one fuel gauge which had the pilot notified because it requires repair. The pilot wished to fly on with this fault but this required an amended flight plan at lower altitude and passing nearer airports in case a priority landing was required because there was actually a fuel leak.

Italy refused because such an amended plan would have disrupted other flights; France made a kneejerk apology despite there being no bureaucratic influence on the French ATC refusal. Spain did not wish the aircraft to land at an airport other than the previously scheduled.

Oh, and there would have been no need to "force the aircraft down" as it was due to make a scheduled refueling stop in Spain anyway.

...link, please?

The fuel gauge problem is well recorded in all the media as was the fact that it was only the amended flight plan that was refused.

Normal ATC procedure does not allow aircraft to take off (in Europe) without a filed and pre-approved flight plan with the possible exception of certain military flights - if the approvals are not there it does not take off. Unfortunately I cannot link to my brother-in-law who was a commercial pilot but the CAA has the rules. It is utterly essential to do this in Europe because of restricted flying space the more so during holiday periods.

Reporting a non-critical malfunction requires the aircraft to amend the flight plan, which the pilot did, but amended flight plans have to have new approval for overflight because of congestion. For whatever reasons three countries refused that permission. By report, France because someone wanted to contact the French Foreign Ministry, Italy and Spain because they could not confirm the new flight plan did not conflict with scheduled flights. This was later reporting and got kind of lost in the melee.

Later reporting from Austria showed the search was exactly as described - a walk through - and again b.i.l. found out that this is a standard request complicated in this case by the fact it was a diplomatic flight. Because it was a diplomatic flight even if Snowden had been on board he could not have been removed by force.

The aircraft used had to make a stop prior to flying the Atlantic because few aircraft if any have the capacity to make it all the way from Moscow to Bolivia. Because Spain is an ally of the USA there was no need to force the aircraft down.

...just a long hand-waving post explaining why you don't need to provide one.

I accept that you and/or your b.i.l. have insider knowledge of flight procedures. It is interesting and informative. However, what neither of you has is inside information on this particular incident.

You say, "For whatever reasons three countries refused that permission. By report, France because someone wanted to contact the French Foreign Ministry, Italy and Spain because they could not confirm the new flight plan did not conflict with scheduled flights." I must ask you, is that normal procedure? When a plane suffers a small malfunction in mid-flight, and submits an amended flight plan, is it really normal for several countries to suddenly deny them access to the airspace, forcing them to make a u-turn en route and find a country willing to let them land? If so, please cite a few other instances where this occurred.

according to Wikipedia,
a Boeing 747 has a range of about 7,500 miles
a Boeing 777 has a range closer to 11k miles
and according to forbes,
One of the longest range private jets has a range of 7,900 miles
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2013/02/13/thirty-amazing-facts-about-private-jets/

The distance from Moscow to Bolivia is about 7500 miles.

You really can't. The extent of mental contortion needed to believe this was SOP truly boggles the mind.

Was denial of France, and Spain, and Portugal to allow him to land to refuel. The flight plan was already filed, and approved when he took off.

Which had the pilot notified because it requires repair. The pilot wished to fly on with this fault but this required an amended flight plan at lower altitude and passing nearer airports in case a priority landing was required because there was actually a fuel leak.

Italy refused because such an amended plan would have disrupted other flights; France made a kneejerk apology despite there being no bureaucratic influence on the French ATC refusal. Spain did not wish the aircraft to land at an airport other than the previously scheduled.

Oh, and there would have been no need to "force the aircraft down" as it was due to make a scheduled refueling stop in Spain anyway.

Because at the time, there were a lot of links.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden-asylum-live

If the plane wasn't diverted, why was there a request to search the plane for Snowden?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/world/americas/bolivia-presidential-plane/

And if it was a mechanical fault, then why did France and Spain apologize?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident#Aftermath

But continue please. What is the source for your information? Or perhaps I should ask, what Propagandist fed you that information?

Because the world knows differently. They know the American Ambassador to Austria told the authorities that Snowden was on the plane and insisted that the plane be searched.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-ambassador-to-austria-responsible-for-false-claim-snowden-was-on-bolivian-leaders-plane-report/5342027

I would point out, that since the plane was the official aircraft carrying a head of state on a diplomatic mission, it was the same as a Foreign Embassy, but who cares about legalities when you have to get Snowden to save face.

Is known to be wrong because it cites only Morales reasoning, not the aircrew. There was no request to search "for Snowden" there was a request to search as is standard in such cases. The search was a few police walking down the aisle of the aircraft not even checking papers.

The CNN article cites only Bolivian Sources

Never use Wikipedia to support your conspiracy theory

The Global Research article cites an Die Presse article which is based primarily on Bolivian reports.

The Bolivians were the only ones claiming the search was because of Snowden.

1) The aircraft submitted a flight plan. It was approved
2) It took off.
3) Over Austria the pilot noted one of the fuel gauges was malfunctioning
4) The pilot asked for a variation to his flight plan
5) Austria agreed to this variation
6) Italy did not agree
7) France did not agree
8) Spain did not agree
9) All these countries were within their rights to refuse the variation due to prior air traffic constraints.
10) The aircraft was diverted to the Austrian Airport.
11) A request was made for a search - this is normal and consists only of a walk through in case of hijacking/hostage taking.
12) The fuel gauge was repaired and sufficient fuel to allow for a continued flight to the original destination (in Spain) was loaded
13) The aircraft submitted an amended flight plan and was allowed to take off .
14) It landed in Spain and took on sufficient fuel for the transatlantic flight

Note that it prior to the fuel gauge problem there was no problem with the Bolivian plane overflying. The only person claiming it had anything to do with Snowden is Morales.

First, let's return to your first assertion, that an aircraft with a fuel gauge problem would want to fly lower. The reason aircraft fly higher is not because they want to use more fuel, but because they use less to cover the same distance. In other words, efficiency. If it was better for them to fly low, there would be a 747 zooming over your house right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Jet_aircraft_efficiency

The fuel gauge issue is bunk. Unless the aircraft was flying against a very strong headwind the fuel usage is well known for every type of aircraft. The Gimli Glider incident is the only major aircraft to run out of fuel, and that had two factors. The fuel gauge was bad, but that did not by itself cause the aircraft to be grounded. You see, the math is so well known that you can still take off and fly with that problem. The final issue was that the aircraft got too little fuel because the fueling people on the ground did the math wrong converting fuel to kilos, instead converting to pounds, which meant that half the fuel needed was loaded on board.

Pilots don't just say fill her up as they get ready to take off. They calculate out how far the destination is, and then they check the weather, and they know how long it will take to fly that far. But just in case, there are regulations that require them to have enough fuel to reach their primary destination, circle for a while, then fly to their alternate destination, and land. An aircraft that comes sputtering out of the sky sucking fumes from the tank never happens because of those rules. If you are going on a ten hour flight, there is enough fuel on board for eleven hours of flying. In other words, the pilots don't fly like you drive, glancing at the gas gauge every now and then to see when they need to pull into the Texaco station for some gas and gummy bears.

So none of what you are saying is in any way true. None of it is factual, and none of it makes any sense. Now, in your mind the pilots of the Bolivian Presidential Plane were a couple of yahoos who got their flight training from Microsoft, but the rest of us know so much better.

So where is the link I asked for? A bunch of bullet points numbered based upon flawed assertions expanded is not a link to evidence.

On the other hand, I first destroyed your narrative, and then destroyed your assertions.

Here is a hint why aircraft are more efficient at altitude. The airplane is designed to fly at a particular speed. Let's use 350 knots. That isn't ground speed, but airspeed indicated. This speed is measured by the resistance through the air by devices called pitot tubes. Those are pointy things on the front of the aircraft that are actually hollow.

Since air is much less dense at altitude, we say it has less pressure. That's not exactly correct, but we're limited by the common terms utilized. The lower density means that the aircraft traveling up high, despite the fact that it has a larger circle (the earth is round you know) it is actually traveling faster across the ground. The indicated airspeed remains at or below the VNE (Velocity Never Exceed) speed of the aircraft. But because of the lower density of the air, it is actually traveling much much faster.

Most jet aircraft have a VNE below 400 Knots. But they fly at speeds of over 500 mph. That's why a flight from New York to LA which is about 3,000 miles take six hours. Now, how can they go that far that fast if their VNE speed is 365 knots for a 747?

So you don't know what happened. You don't know aircraft and how they work. You have no links to back up your theories. Send an email to the voice in your head, or to the propagandist who told you this nonsense. None of it is true.

Or do you want me to get into the general rule about an airplane in trouble and how ATC handles it? Because if the pilot did have a problem on the plane, one that would affect safety of flight, he would have asked to land immediately. Pilots are kind of funny that way, the joke they tell about wanting to avoid accidents is this. They cockpit is at the front of the plane, and the pilot is the first one to the accident. In most plane crashes, if passengers die, the pilot almost always dies too.

Fully cited article in a newspaper of record == "conspiracy theory"

This movie clip is pretty much where your arguments on this issue are:

There was a problem with a fuel gauge which had the pilot notified because it requires repair. The pilot wished to fly on with this fault but this required an amended flight plan at lower altitude and passing nearer airports in case a priority landing was required because there was actually a fuel leak.

Italy refused because such an amended plan would have disrupted other flights; France made a kneejerk apology despite there being no bureaucratic influence on the French ATC refusal. Spain did not wish the aircraft to land at an airport other than the previously scheduled.

Oh, and there would have been no need to "force the aircraft down" as it was due to make a scheduled refueling stop in Spain anyway.

A paper of official record making such false claims needs to be spanked, and hard!

After all, the reporter implies that he talked personally with U.S. officials who substantiate that there was a plan to " enlist France, Spain, Italy and Portugal to block the Bolivian president’s flight home."

Sounds like a leak investigation is in order too....

If the idea was to force the plane down in a friendly country there was absolutely no need. It had to land in Spain anyway as part of its flight plan because it does not carry sufficient fuel to fly direct from Moscow to South America.

Can't be true.

And for a good reason, too...


Because!

despite the fact that normal operating procedures were being followed.

I thought you were in the States.

It's been pleasure chatting with you.

like the Washington Post.

Yeah, the idea that the Washington Post is a conspiracy theory newspaper rings as loudly as church bell.

I'd look out for bats in that belfry.

All I can see is that he linked to this WaPo article from last summer:

Evo Morales’s controversial flight over Europe, minute by heavily disputed minute

The article is worth a read but I can't see that it supports the narrative you prefer

The article doesn't support it and I need another source to back it up.

Same thing that happened when the story was discussed here on DU. I linked the thread. SAME arguments.

But I'm sure WaPo and AP aren't credible and somehow you are right and everyone else is deluded.

to another WaPo article from last year that doesn't obviously support the statement

WaPo, AP, nobody is credible unless they support an argument. It's calling the messenger into question, instead of facing up to the message.

He is saying this has been discussed with him by anonymous U.S. official/s:

The only people who claim otherwise are a small group of flat-earthers and die hard apologists on DU. Weird, but they do exist.

of Morales were wrong, as we thought.

So sick of the games. It was obvious the US was pulling strings in Europe. And Snowden outsmarted them as he knew what his fate would have been had he been foolish enough to take any route where a Western Imprerial ally would certainly have cooperated in handing him over.

I can't believe they thought he would be that stupid.

It would still be working if they still controlled the media, but they don't.

It has the distinct scent of hair on fire.

Now that is embarrassing.


At the risk of being labeled a traitor, I'll K&R!

It's also kind of ironic

I always feel safe and secure, knowing they are on the job

Not sure he outsmarted anyone - let's see how this ends first.

of his route.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3164458

Who could ever forget THE MAP?

reading the original just to get those images.

It had been a long time since I laughed so hard.

that was a hoot! the same folks are still at it i notice! LOL

hoping someone would post this.

Very entertaining! Thanks for posting.

A handful of people in this thread say that it is a fabrication.

Which everyone knows they did from the get-go, but you can have the WaPo repeat it a year later and they want another source, or claim they don't know what that really means. "What does it mean to force a foreign leader's plane to land?"

which shows both stories are connected.

that's the connection.

I'd like to know where that jet went after it was in Copenhagen. Back to U.S.? Or somewhere else?

since that would necessitate theft. They just aren't left out laying around on any aircraft. W/o a log book its just a piece of metal.....worthless.

..."covering more than two years, shows that it always departs from Washington DC. It has flown to 49 destinations outside America, including the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba and other U.S. military bases, as well as Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Morocco, Afghanistan, Libya and Uzbekistan."

Note how much information can be gleaned from just looking at METADATA.

because it was a year ago, and if you do remember, you don't recall it correctly, and even if you do, *I* don't recall, don't know what you are talking about, and you are petty for bringing this up.



Did I hit the high points?

The WaPo webpage actually says: The decision to divert that plane ended in embarrassment when it was searched in Vienna and Snowden was not aboard

The hyperlink, which you omit, leads to this WaPo article from last summer:

Evo Morales’s controversial flight over Europe, minute by heavily disputed minute
BY MAX FISHER July 3, 2013
... According to Austrian statements, flight FAB-001 requested permission to land in Vienna because the pilots believed they might not have had sufficient fuel ... Audio purportedly taken from FAB-001's calls to Vienna air traffic control (more on the source and verifiability of the audio here) seem to have the flight crew requesting permission to land either because they were low on fuel or due to an indicator problem ...

"The burst of activity during that period — including the White House meetings, a broad diplomatic scramble and the decision to force a foreign leader’s plane to land — was far more extensive than U.S. officials acknowledged at the time."

What does it mean to force a foreign head of state's plane to land? Surely it doesn't mean anything. I'm sure that every head of state gets their plane forced to land. I'm sure that some plane somewhere has a fuel problem so that automatically means that all planes that carry heads of state that supposedly carry a person of interest have sudden, abrupt fuel problems and need their aircraft searched.

Aircraft searched. See, that is where your narrative hits a pothole and the wheel flies off.

It's rather hilarious that you keep it up, though, so I'll just offer my comments and watch.

Arming progressives with actual information, that helps them analyze and understand the world in order to win fights, is one thing

Amusing oneself, by spouting bullshizz, is quite a different thing: IMO that objectively supports the status quo by denying people the opportunity to think clearly and accurately

There's nothing wrong with a bit of healthy cynicism or healthy paranoia about the state of the world or about how large institutions functions. If one's cynicism and paranoia are tempered by an insistence on actual facts, and can be put to use to help people think accurately about what strategies might help us work towards our goals, then a bit of cynicism and paranoia might actually be helpful. But cynicism and paranoia alone won't move us forward, and they can become a lazy substitute for the hard work of trying to change anything

If you want to amuse yourself by bullshizzing, you're certainly free to do so, but then IMO you're not a progressive in any objective sense: you're just engaged in some silly pointless mind-ferking

Latin Americans have good reason, based on examples going back over many years, to distrust the US. There's no question that GWB attempted to overthrow Chavez and actually deposed Aristide. I've been convinced for years that GHWB invaded Panama because Noriega had been a CIA-asset, knew about drug-dealing associated with Reagan's contras, and had (in a manner of speaking) wandered off the plantation. Reagan's proxy wars in Guatemala, Nicaragua, and El Salvador were shameful affairs; and the history goes back years before that, including the Nixon-sponsored coup against Allende and more. And, unfortunately, Latin Americans can expect more of the same, the next time the US has another rightwing government, because we on the left here in the US really haven't had our act together for years and years

You can sit back and engage in adolescent snickering, popcorn in hand, if you like, or sneer about a map somebody or other posted a year ago, or chuckle how hilarious you think my post #31 seems to you -- but all I did was point out that the link Greg Miller gave, to support his statement, didn't actually support his statement

...supporting the notion that Evo Morales' plane was indeed forced to land, is "Amusing oneself, by spouting bullshizz"... While writing long, lecturing screeds full of opinion and devoid of factual information is... well apparently in your mind it's a rebuttal.

It is not surprising that you resent the map incident being brought up again. I will readily admit it: I laughed, I sneered, I nearly choked on my coffee -- then and now. But c'mon now, why not just get over it? It wasn't even you who posted the map. Unless you are actually trying to defend the map, even now... surely not?

WaPo has sometimes published garbage. Just last week, for example, they ran a piece about the discovery of nearly 800 babies and children buried in a septic tank at Tuam. This was garbled nonsense: no burial of 800 bodies has been found there nor is it actually known that any bodies were ever placed in a septic tank on the site

There's nothing wrong with a touch of cynicism: it can give you an edge if used properly. But to get that edge, you need to apply your touch of cynicism broadly rather than only to your favorite targets. Anonymous sources aren't always pure, and neither are the news media. It may be important to read carefully

I'll tell you who else has sometimes published garbage: struggle4progress.

Particularly when posting to people on the Internet whom he has never met, presuming he has any business whatsoever lecturing them on the acceptable level of, and proper uses of, cynicism.

It is to laugh.

Thank you.

This latest looks to be wishful revisionism.

Lordy...

"I didn't say that". Reveal that you did, in fact, say that.

"I don't remember saying it." Provide links to you saying that.

"It's out of context and I don't remember saying that."

But Snowden is a traitor and an enemy of the US.

Here's a question for you. How did the CIA and the NSA miss the existence of and danger presented by ISIS. How did the Intelligence Services miss an entire Army? We're not talking about a couple of dolts in a basement with a rifle. We're talking about an Army. One so large and powerful that they have already taken a goodly portion of Iraq and appear poised to beat the United State's record on the fastest invasion in history.

How did Snowden screw up the ability of the CIA and NSA to find an army?

Loyal citizens don't mind being kept in the dark and fed a steady diet of shit.

Nope, sorry. I want my government to be moral so they don't look like a bunch of tossers every time their oh-so-confident pronouncements end up being self-serving cover-their-ass fiction about breaking the social contract with their citizens.

You know, like this situation pretty much exactly.

So much crazy.

we will put his head on a coin or something.

There is a large section of the national security state that appears to view the public as the enemy, or at the least the opposition. Does it ever occur to any of them to just tell the truth?

...and Greg Miller hates President Obama and/or doesn't know what he's talking about.



Thanks for posting. Not that it will convince certain factions here, but oh well. It's already been worth it just to rehash the infamous "map" thread... still makes me laugh out loud.

Austrian officials said they were skeptical of the plan from the outset and noted that Morales’s plane had taken off from a different airport in Moscow than where Snowden was held. “Unless the Russians had carted him across the city,” one official said, it was unlikely he was on board.

Even if Snowden had been a passenger, officials said, it is unclear how he could have been removed from a Bolivian air force jet whose cabin would ordinarily be regarded as that country’s sovereign domain — especially in Austria, a country that considers itself diplomatically neutral.

“We would have looked foolish if Snowden had been on that plane sitting there grinning,” said a senior Austrian official. “There would have been nothing we could have done.”

It wouldn't surprise me at all if it was, but I will remain agnostic on this until I see some hard evidence.

suggested a landing was neccessary.

One wonders why this is come up again. With Snowden's visa expiring soon, his lack of passport, and the possibility of him attempting to try another country, perhaps these OPs rrflect a certain anxiety for him.

But that article is pretty sloppy in its handling of the story of Morales' plane.

...yes indeedy, those damned reporters, always trying to bring things to our attention that we would really prefer to not know.

I'll just copy it so you don't have to search.....

''Because at the time, there were a lot of links.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden-asylum-live

If the plane wasn't diverted, why was there a request to search the plane for Snowden?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/world/americas/bolivia-presidential-plane/

And if it was a mechanical fault, then why did France and Spain apologize?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident#Aftermath

But continue please. What is the source for your information? Or perhaps I should ask, what Propagandist fed you that information?

Because the world knows differently. They know the American Ambassador to Austria told the authorities that Snowden was on the plane and insisted that the plane be searched.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-ambassador-to-austria-responsible-for-false-claim-snowden-was-on-bolivian-leaders-plane-report/5342027

I would point out, that since the plane was the official aircraft carrying a head of state on a diplomatic mission, it was the same as a Foreign Embassy, but who cares about legalities when you have to get Snowden to save face.''

I confess that I didn't follow the story very closely. It does seem that, at a minimum, the US was trying to nab Snowden from that plane.