Saturday, December 05, 2009

AirTran Says Petruna Was Not On The Flight

This is probably not a surprise to many of us. Petruna's story sounded overly heroic and quasi-macho from the beginning, didn't it?

AirTran now says Petruna could not have been on flight 297. Was Robinson lying too? Why did several passengers and an entire flight crew refuse to fly then? Someone is not telling the whole story.

According to all available records, Mr. Petruna's trip originated from Akron-Caton, Ohio (CAK) on AirTran flight 205. This flight arrived at the gate in Atlanta at 5:06 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

From the Airline Zone:

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.

According to all available records, Mr. Petruna's trip originated from Akron-Ca[n]ton, Ohio (CAK) on AirTran flight 205. This flight arrived at the gate in Atlanta at 5:06 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Flight 297, the flight which Mr. Patruna [sic] allegedly wrote a first-hand account of, originally pushed back from its gate in Atlanta at 4:40 p.m. EST, a full 26 minutes before flight 205 arrived at the gate in Atlanta making this flight connection impossible.

While Mr. Patruna was originally scheduled to begin his journey on AirTran flight 202 from CAK and connect to flight 297 in Atlanta he did not make that original flight.





All this being said, there's a lot of smoke here. So, is there a fire? It would seem there is at least a little fire.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

the kernal of truth is in deeply muddied waters at this point..

which brings me to the only conclusion....


find a muddy waters clip.

Pastorius said...

That is a very good solution.

Alexander Münch said...

The anger is choking me !

I'm mad and furious as hell!

One minute with you Mr. Patruna, alone!

That is all I want.

Pastorius said...

Alexander,
I think your anger is appropriate.

It's funny, you and I must think a bit alike.

As I wrote to a friend on this subject, friggin Petruna might as well have just joined Al Qaeda for as much damage as his kind of behavior does to our cause.

Alexander Münch said...

Thanks Pastorius.

I'm still recovering from my 95% skin blisters after been scalded by you somewhere on this blog or Via e-mail... but as we say " WHO WILL REMEMBER IT IN THE MORNING " !...

Happy Christmas to you and a very HAPPY NEW YEAR !

Keep on the good work.

Alex.

.

Pastorius said...

Sorry.

I'm a cranky guy.

What did I get angry with you about anyway?

:)

Alexander Münch said...

You Cranky? Ha! Me Mega Cranky!!!

Since the "Blisters" are about a month old... I think I made you angry somewhere in November about the M/F KSM tried in NY Civil court instead of a military tribunal, and my "Solution" to fix it fast, cheap and effectively!...

You gave me a lecture about a document called the "Constitution" etc.

O.K.! I do respect what is dear and holly to you ! FACT !!!

But I still believe, that the a/m M/F should not see the Sun in his short life nor the stairs to the court room but 13 barrels of " COP KILLERS " !!

Now, what are you going to do to me, Huh?...

Alex.

.

Pastorius said...

Well then, I misunderstood you, because my preferable death for KSM WHO IS AFTER ALL AN ENEMY COMBATANT, would be for him to be shot to death by multiple weapons or hung to death.

He does not deserve the rights of an American citizen, and the fact that he has been given those rights by Obama is cause for Obama to be tried for Treason.

Obama is aiding and comforting our enemy.

Alexander Münch said...

===" KSM WHO IS AFTER ALL AN ENEMY COMBATANT "===

WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HE IS THE "FATHER" OF ALL WAR CRIMINALS !! OR AT THE BEST JUST A MONSTROUS, BLOODY TERRORIST !!!

We shall meet again!

'Over and out'

Alex.

Alexander Münch said...

OK Pastorius, You wish to go on? It is perfectly OK with me. Now it is 20:30 'In my cave' and I'm all yours until 24:00 LT, agree?

As you might have noticed by now, English is not my mother's tong! I'm trying my best to make you 'Gringos' understand me (Us...) and myself to understand you. FACT!

I don't know what the word Combatant stand for today! Are my twins A&J who are serving now in the IDF (See my Blog) equal to their grandmother Klementina ( My mother ) who was an officer in the Yugoslav PARTIZANS fighting the Nazis? Are the French RESISTANCE equal to the IRA or the Hizbullah? What does the term "Freedom Fighter" stands for today? MK47 & Kafiya?

I demand a definition! And I want to know (NOW), how do you deal with something which is not defined in the UN Charter No. 4 !

If we are going to play a new 'Poker' with a 'Joker', don't be surprised if I will have four of them in my hand!...

Alex.

Pastorius said...

You are misunderstanding me.

An unlawful, or enemy, combatant doesn't have rights. He is just a terrorist. He wears no uniform. According to our law, enemy combatants can either be shot and killed, or brought to trial by a Military Tribunal, and then killed.