Right after the Pentagon was hit, NEADS learned of another possible hijacked aircraft. It was an aircraft that in fact had not been hijacked at all. After the second World Trade Center crash, Boston Center managers recognized that both aircraft were transcontinental 767 jetliners that had departed Logan Airport. Remembering the "we have some planes" remark, Boston Center guessed that Delta 1989 might also be hijacked. Boston Center called NEADS at 9:41 and identified Delta 1989, a 767 jet that had left Logan Airport for Las Vegas, as a possible hijack. NEADS warned the FAA's Cleveland Center to watch Delta 1989. The Command Center and FAA headquarters watched it too. During the course of the morning, there were multiple erroneous reports of hijacked aircraft. The report of American 11 heading south was the first; Delta 1989 was the second. NEADS never lost track of Delta 1989, and even ordered fighter aircraft from Ohio and Michigan to intercept it. The flight never turned off its transponder. NEADS soon learned that the aircraft was not hijacked, and tracked Delta 1989 as it reversed course over Toledo, headed east, and landed in Cleveland. But another aircraft was heading toward Washington, an aircraft about which NORAD had heard nothing: United 93. United Airlines Flight 93 FAA Awareness. At 9:27, after having been in the air for 45 minutes, United 93 acknowledged a transmission from the Cleveland Center controller. This was the last normal contact the FAA had with the flight. Less than a minute later, the Cleveland controller and the pilots of aircraft in the vicinity heard "a radio transmission of unintelligible sounds of possible screaming or a struggle from an unknown origin." The controller responded, seconds later: "Somebody call Cleveland?"This was followed by a second radio transmission, with sounds of screaming.

How did the Cleveland controller respond to a transmission that seemed to signify trouble?

Relying on an animal to come by is risky. A flower may have to wait a long time for the right animals to come by. What if one never passes close enough to the flower? Hoping the wind will blow is also risky for a plant. What if the wind does not blow? What if the blowing pollen does not land on another flower? The wind could even blow the pollen over the ocean where it is wasted. Giving free nectar is costly. It is not a good use of the plants energy. A plant uses a lot of energy to produce nectar. Some animals may just drink the nectar. They may not carry off any pollen in return. To improve their chances, plants evolved special traits. For example, they developed ways to hide their nectar. Only certain animals were able to get at the plants hidden nectar. These specific animals might be more likely to visit only flowers of the same species. This was also a benefit for some animals. Animals also evolved special traits to get to the nectar.

What problems could arise if a plant waits for the wind to help it?

Sometimes traits can vary from parent to offspring. These changes are due to mutations. Mutations are a random change. Mutations are natural. Some mutations are harmful. In this case, the organism may not live to reproduce. The trait will not be passed onto offspring. Others variations in traits have no effect on survival. Can some mutations be good for a living thing? Other mutations can have great benefits. Imagine being the first moth that can blend into its background. It would have a better chance of survival. A living thing that survives is likely to have offspring. If it does, it may pass the new trait on to its offspring. Thats good news for the offspring. The offspring may be more likely to survive. Mutations are one way living things adapt to new conditions.
What can mutations enable?