Thursday, April 13, 2006

Flight 93 cockpit recording is a hoax

I will stick my neck out and declare it a hoax: Jurors in the al-Moussaoui trial were shown alleged cockpit voice recordings of the final stages of the hijacking of United Airlines flight 93. It was played to the court accompanied by a video showing gruesome pictures of charred bodies, so it was intended to stir emotions rather than to provide hard evidence. The defence team's objections to the type of evidence were over-ruled.

It took the authorities a long time to come up with evidence from the flight recorders which they had earlier stated were not recoverable. It seems to me they still did a rather sloppy job when replacing the real recordings with this dramatic production. Here is why:

First of all, Cockpit voice recordings and recordings of air traffic communications are separated, yet in this case they appear together. I only have the transcript to go by since the actual recordings have not been released. I cannot establish from the transcript at what volume certain parts of it appear. It is possible that the crew instead of using headsets would have switched air traffic communications onto the cabin loud speakers so that they would also be audible in the cockpit. It does, however, not explain why we can hear communications from air traffic control and another plane on the frequency, but we cannot hear the communications by flight 93 crew to air traffic control, although those should have been a lot more audible.

According to the transcript air traffic control received a communication that there was a bomb on board, but we do not hear the pilots stating so. Air traffic control ask another plane on the frequency whether this is what they heard and they confirm. This means that the pilots must have stated so on the frequency. Air traffic control could not have gauged this information from the transponder code selected by the pilots as this would not be accessible to the crew of the third plane nor would it be specific. There is a transponder code for hijacking, but not for a bomb on board. Air traffic control could not have taken this information from what the hijackers said either, since to transmit a message to air traffic control the pilot has to press a push-to-talk button and the noise cancelling microphone will not pick up anything from the background.

However, let's assume, unlikely as this is, that they did pick up what the hijackers said according to the transcript, namely: "Ladies and Gentlemen. Here the captain, please sit down keep remaining seating. We have a bomb on board. So sit." Here the script writers for the audio/video presentation made their biggest blunder. According to the script those remarks were made in Arabic. Air traffic could have got them translated, although not instantaneously, and they would have had to figure out what language they were dealing with first, but there is no chance that the crew of Executive Jet 956, the third plane on the frequency, could have understood those remarks.

The script writers made sure that there is plenty of Arabic in the recording to firmly establish the origin of the hijackers. They also add plenty of Bismillahs and Allahu akbars to show that these are Muslim fanatics. With the above quoted remark they have, however, gone over the top by making the translation sound foreign as well. Either they had a very incompetent translator or they weren't sure whether they should script this remark in Arabic or English - "keep remaining seating" sure does not sound like a good translation.

There is a problem with this opening sentence being in Arabic. From the content one would assume that it is addressed to the plane's passengers as it starts with "Ladies and Gentlemen." From the context it is said in the cabin upon first encounter with the captain. You can't talk from the flight deck to the passengers except over the intercom system, so it is unclear who the addressees of these sentences are meant to be. But neither crew nor passengers would have understood Arabic. If the remarks were made in conversation to fellow hijackers then they would hardly begin with "Ladies and Gentlemen" nor would they bother to inform them that they had a bomb on board.

Later in the tape we are treated with some more drama which would suit a Hollywood movie but not the real world of flying. It seems the hijackers discovered that there was a fight in the cabin. To control the situation one of them suggests to cut off the oxygen. What a folly! Breathing at high altitude in modern aircraft is achieved through cabin pressurisation not through the supply of oxygen. You can depressurise the aircraft, of course, but this would be gradual not sudden. And if you did it would affect both the passengers and the crew, so the hijackers would then need oxygen to cope with the thin depressurised air on the flight deck.

But we are made to believe that the hijackers were stupid. They tried to take control of the plane but didn't really know how to fly it. One of them is heard to instruct the other with short commands like "pull it down", "up, down, up, down", "down, push, push, push, push", "hey, give it to me". In the end, I suppose this explains why the flight crashed just like it happens on Microsoft flight simulator when you mess about with a 757. To emphasise the loss of control they suddenly all repeatedly say "Allahu akbar", but not the Shahadah.

Nice try, I say, but there is no doubt in my mind that, once more, we are being taken for a ride.



Postscript:

There is an unofficial transcript of Flight 93 available which was released by AirDisasters.com, not by the government. In that transcript the remarks about the bomb are made in English by the hijackers and a little later made again by the captain. A careful comparison of both texts reveals numerous discrepancies to the wording and the sequence of what is being said. There is no way both can be correct, ergo somebody is making things up. If Moussaoui's defence team don't tear this evidence to shreds, then they are working for the prosecution.

50 Comments:

At 13 April 2006 at 16:27, Anonymous minaz said...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change&pl=true

Worth a watch i would highly recommend it to anyone..

 
At 14 April 2006 at 10:20, Anonymous Isaa said...

Good post. I liked the point at the end that these fanatics actually forgot what they are supposed to recite before death. Might have been worthwhile adding a few quotes and links for your non-Muslim readers.

“It is recommended, if at all possible, for a Muslim's last words to be the declaration of faith: "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah." ref: http://islam.about.com/cs/elderly/a/funerals.htm

Also, just out of interest, this is very similar to what Jews recite:

'When death is imminent, there is a specified ritual to be followed: (1) The vidu'i ("confession") prayer or the Shema (one-line summary of Jewish belief taken from the Book of Deuteronomy: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one") is recited by the dying person..' ref: http://www.j-cinstitute.org/Articles/Bigman_Back_Jewish_Rituals.htm

 
At 17 April 2006 at 21:26, Blogger Masher1 said...

Sooner of later America is going to come to the reaization that EVERY thing about 9/11 that your government has said is the way it happened is LIES. Every word of it is LIES. flight 93 EVERY word on this plane is lies. Your gov. is doing a great job on poluting your colective headspace. When are you going to DO some thing America? Next year? After the 08' baloney election. After WHAT? What will it take America? A distroyed city? Many distroyed citys? Get to your DUTIES America.

 
At 21 April 2006 at 13:19, Blogger Sigmund, Carl and Alfred said...

ANOTHER conspiracy.

To your credit, the word 'Jew' doesn't appear- unless of course, that will be in the second installment.o

 
At 21 April 2006 at 14:35, Anonymous Londoner said...

JEW

Damn gonna have to wash my mouth out now, jeez.

 
At 21 April 2006 at 14:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

YID

 
At 21 April 2006 at 14:50, Blogger Sigmund, Carl and Alfred said...

How very civilized of you. Profound, too.

 
At 23 April 2006 at 18:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

nice post sir,
ich wohne im Deutschland. Schotland geboren mit Deutsche frau.

911 was an inside job.

Video: 911 Eyewitness

 
At 23 April 2006 at 18:24, Anonymous Anonymous said...

“I am prepared to wager that well within twenty-five years the Americans themselves will have realized what a handicap has been imposed upon them by this parasitic Jewry, clamped fast to their flesh and nourishing itself on their life-blood. It is this Jewry that is dragging them into adventures which, when all is said and done, are no concern of theirs and in which the interests at stake are of no importance to them. What possible reason can the non-Jewish Americans have for sharing the hatreds of the Jews and following meekly in their footsteps? One thing is quite certain -within a quarter of a century the Americans will either have become violently anti-Semitic or they will be devoured by Jewry.” –- Adolf Hitler, Transcript XIV, 24th February 1945

 
At 23 April 2006 at 18:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hitler was antisemetic? Well jeez, then surely anyone even mentioning the "J" word must be just like him!


When all else fails, thow Hitler in the mix. Nice try.

 
At 23 April 2006 at 19:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/flight93-air-traffic.htm

 
At 23 April 2006 at 20:18, Anonymous suspicious american said...

There is a difference between jews and zionists. Not all jews are zionists. Zionists try to dodge criticism by claiming it is all anti-semitism, as if they represent all jews everywhere. I don't know what really happened on 9-11, but I do know I'm being lied to. It seems any discussion of the subject always leads to charges of anti-semitism. Quite frankly, it looks like considerable effort is being made to hide something. If any names should be brought up, it seems Emmanuel Goldstein would be more appropriate than Hitler.

 
At 23 April 2006 at 20:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Video: 911 Eyewitness

What happened at the World Trade Center on 9.11.2001 from eyewitness testimony and scientific analysis.

High quality, three-chip digital video reveals the previously unseen reverse angle to televised coverage of the Twin Towers and Seven World Trade collapsing and a lot more. This is the only known unedited footage that contains a clear, real-time audio track of the many disturbing events that took place during the WTC destruction.

Local news radio coverage was overheard playing in the background live at the Hoboken waterfront. Scientific analysis is presented in an easy to understand manner. The pictures tell the story and this is one story that all New Yorkers, and anyone who was traumatized by the shocking attack on the WTC, must see. In memory of all those who perished, 911 Eyewitness is a voice of the victims that must never be forgotten.

 
At 24 April 2006 at 03:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"[T]hey suddenly all repeatedly say 'Allahu akbar', but not the Shahadah."

Considering that several of them were out drinking booze at a strip joint in South Florida the night before, I postulate that they weren't the most religious Muslims in the world.

 
At 24 April 2006 at 05:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"[T]hey suddenly all repeatedly say 'Allahu akbar', but not the Shahadah."

I generally like your analysis, but don't forget that there are three unreleased/unrecovered final minutes of the flight, probably plenty to say the shahadah if they knew they were doomed.

It was my interpretation that they were trying to control the passengers who may have been fighting with the hijackers that were outside of the cockpit, by rolling and bumping the plane "up down up down".

 
At 24 April 2006 at 06:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

nice spin.

trying to control the passengers by flying "up down up down"...yeah that'll do it...


off topic:

why did the Secret Service allow Bush to sit still as America is under attack?!?! Did they "know" he was in no danger?

www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11secretservice.html

 
At 24 April 2006 at 07:00, Anonymous Sheeple Herder said...

9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!

Learn The Truth!

http://www.911eyewitness.com/

http://www.loosechange911.com/

 
At 24 April 2006 at 10:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

and while we're on the topic....

a semite is a person who speaks one of the semitic languages, which are the afro-asiatic languages that include:

arabic, aramaic, maltese, amharic, and hebrew.

therefore, by definition, an anti-semite is someone who has a bias or prejudice against a specific family of words, grammer, spelling, and languages, including the words, grammer, spelling and languages spoken by both eh-rabs and jews.

statistically, you will find that the majority of bigoted people do not hate a particular or even group of languages; but rather the people who speak said languages.

beware of any who throws down the term "anti-semite"; they are either terribly ignorant, or, most likely; they are attempting to silence an alternative viewpoint by the use of confusing semantics.

-shiny-

 
At 24 April 2006 at 10:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

and while we're on the topic....

a semite is a person who speaks one of the semitic languages, which are the afro-asiatic languages that include:

arabic, aramaic, maltese, amharic, and hebrew.

therefore, by definition, an anti-semite is someone who has a bias or prejudice against a specific family of words, grammer, spelling, and languages, including the words, grammer, spelling and languages spoken by both eh-rabs and jews.

statistically, you will find that the majority of bigoted people do not hate a particular or even group of languages; but rather the people who speak said languages.

beware of any who throws down the term "anti-semite"; they are either terribly ignorant, or, most likely; they are attempting to silence an alternative viewpoint by the use of confusing semantics.

-shiny-

 
At 24 April 2006 at 15:12, Anonymous Mythic Mystic said...

To be anti-Semitic is not only to be anti-jew but also anti-arab. Semitisim has to do with language, NOT RACE! All races and religions of the area are Semitic. Until people realize this we all will "BUY THE LIE"!!! It is also correct that there is a differance between Jews and Zionists. Jews have been around for thousands of years, Zionists only a little over 100 years or so. Zionisim IS Anti-Semitic and is the conterfit of Jews. KNOWLEDGE, WISDOM, UNDERSTANDING, FORGIVENESS, LOVE, TRUTH.

 
At 24 April 2006 at 15:37, Anonymous Henry Balfour said...

At 1:19 PM, Sigmund, Carl and Alfred said...
ANOTHER conspiracy.

To your credit, the word 'Jew' doesn't appear- unless of course, that will be in the second instalment.

He (the Flying Imam) obviously has more self-control than me. "Jews" would be inaccurate as a collective noun - what you are reaching for is the collective noun "Zionists". And to get the ball rolling, let's start with Larry Silverstein, the lease holder on the Port Authority site (BTW, the Port Authority, while sounding like an NY government body is actually Rothschild-owned - was that Jewish enough) who badly needs to step up to the mike and explain how the WTC 7 building managed to come pre-wired for implosion.

For ever so long I was 'mainstream' on this whole Jewish 'thing' - being a Balfour only added to my sense of business as usual while I watched Israel dig itself deeper and deeper into the pit. Within the last decade I have re-evaluated my beliefs, and actually done some ground research - Mate, it's NOT good. While Jews are right to resent collective blame, (just as Palestinians are right to reject collective punishment, a favourite Third Reich tactic now implemented in Palestine) the real culprits that both you and I need to focus on are the thoroughly nasty bunch of Zionist 'fanatics' (yes, it's the right word for them) who have managed to highjack mainstream Jewish focus as far as the rest of the world are concerned. Zionism finds it entirely useful to have Jews blamed for it's own twisted behaviour - they need this as a smokescreen. Ample evidence is available to show that early on in the Zionist evolution they acknowledged the usefulness of anti-Semitism and the need to promulgate it.

So, Mate, stop whining about the JEW word, and recognise that you (assuming that you are yourself Jewish) have been co-opted into this desperately unfortunate position by the deliberate machinations of 'political' Jews (as opposed to 'true Torah' Jews, with whom I stand aligned now) and that you must do whatever you can to separate Zionism from Judaism.

If you can't grasp this, you are helping the current accelerating decline of Israel more than you realise.

sincerely
Henry Balfour

 
At 24 April 2006 at 16:07, Anonymous Mythic Mystic said...

Well said Balfour. Bravo.

 
At 24 April 2006 at 16:12, Blogger Sigmund, Carl and Alfred said...

That your surname is Balfour is irrelevant to the converstaion and the merits of the arguments you present, as is your religion. I fond it curious that you somehow need to point those things out, as if somehow, that might afford you credibility. It does not.

Further, your assumption that I am Jewish is incorrect. Again, I find it your obession with religion interesting.

In addition, your babbling on about what you used to believe vs what you believe now only serves to highlight a certains instability. What you used to believe is irrelevant. Let's keep it to the here and now.

Notwithstanding the Flying Imam's belief, are you proposing that the WTC event was not an act of terror?

Further, the facts you present are in dispute- but that aside, the Rothschilds are also bankers to much of the Arab world- and the Iranians as well.

As for the mindless drivel about 'Palestinians' and human rights, clearly, you don't give a rats ass. You are a fraud. If you really cared, you'd be up in arms over far greater excesses and outrages. 100 million women have been subjected to FGM. The GIA in Algeria raped and dismembered children as a matter of course. There is am ongoing slave trade in Mauritania that has affected hundreds of thousands. The matter in Darfur is ongoing and the butchery of Saddam went unanswered- and unspoken of for decades.

You are a hypocrite- these human rights abuses, and there are many more examples, far exceed the issues the Palestinians face. Further, your stupidity is highlighted by denial of reality. If the Israelis really wanted to eliminate the Palestinians, they could have and would have done so, a long time ago. They are not that inept. In addition, the 'occupaton' is the most benign military 'occupation' in history. See this
http://sigcarlfred.blogspot.com/2005/04/dont-know-much-about-history-pissant.html
and this
http://sigcarlfred.blogspot.com/2005/04/politics-cannot-hide-truth.html

Can we expect serious references to the Protocols next?

Finally, your reference to 'Torah True' Jews is absurd. The vast majority of Jews, including traditional and orthodox Jews, do not suscribe to the beliefs you claim to adhere to.

On top of being a hypocrite, you are an idiot.

 
At 24 April 2006 at 16:23, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The BBC transcript referenced in the article no longer states that the opening comments were made in Arabic.

 
At 24 April 2006 at 17:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can you be a German and a muslim? That is impossible!

Other than that, a good post. Surely everybody by now must know that the Israelis did 9/11 and all the other bombings. London, Madrid, Bali etc.
Now we must wait and see what they are going to do to get us into a war with Iran and then Syria and then Lebanon. The Zionists don't care how many innocents die to establish their Empire.

 
At 24 April 2006 at 17:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If a lie is said enough times, it becomes the truth.
Unfortunately we live in a US where the majority will only believe what's told to them.
The real truth about anything this Administration has done will not be learned in our lifetime, and maybe not our childrens lifetime.

 
At 24 April 2006 at 20:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent post!
I concur with your idea of the Recordings to be a hoax.
Isn't it curious how the "transcripts" come out in the public, the SAME MONTH as the release of the MOVIE!!!
The script now matches the official story now matches the movie now matches the COVERUP.

Again, excellent musings, keep up the good work.

 
At 24 April 2006 at 21:34, Blogger Lori_Price_CLG said...

Bush, Cheney Halliburton, Rumsfeld, and Rove need to be tried for treason, with all possible penalties for treason on the plate.

Cheers,
Lori R. Price
Gen. Mgr.
Citizens For Legitimate Government
http://www.legitgov.org/

Receive the daily CLG Newsletter!
http://www.legitgov.org/#subscribe_clg

 
At 25 April 2006 at 00:47, Anonymous Buckaroo said...

"with all possible penalties for treason on the plate."

As far as I know there is only one penalty for convicted treason.

TO HANG FROM THE NECK UNTIL DEAD!

Good post Dr Sahib

 
At 25 April 2006 at 09:49, Anonymous Londoner said...

Another excellent post from the Dr who knows his subject well.
I agree with Balfour. The fundamentalist Zionists are the secret face of true global terror and must not be confused with many JEWS who dont agree with the atrocities carried out by the Zionists.

Sigmond carla and Alfie loses all crediblity not only are his/her points patheticly inaccurate but he joins the ranks of twathood by hurling insults.

 
At 25 April 2006 at 18:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

(Posted by me on another forum Lenbrazil)

His objections are so silly one wonders if this guy really is a pilot he doesn’t seem to have studied the case well and at times he seems to have misunderstood what he read It is also quite possible that he so wants to believe the tape is fake it muddled his thinking.

“First of all, Cockpit voice recordings and recordings of air traffic communications are separated, yet in this case they appear together. I only have the transcript”

A recording and transcript of the ATC have been available for a while, if he was really a student of 9/11 he should have known that, he only discovered the transcript after his post

Normally there is overlap.

CVR record all sounds in the cockpit so it will record ATC transmissions when the flight crew (or hijackers in this case) are monitoring the ATC frequency on the cockpit speakers, the CVR mike is always on when the plane is flying. Normally the ATC won’t record what the pilots say to each other. On flight 93 however they hijackers didn’t know how to use the communication set properly and left the mike keyed to ATC much of the time and when they tried to “broadcast” to the cabin they were instead overheard by ATC and the other planes using the same frequency. The hijackers’ problems using the plane’s communication system was widely reported in the news and was mentioned in 9/11 Report [9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm ] so once again it seems this guy didn’t do his homework.


There were some parts of the flight were the pilot’s mike wasn’t on, at those times the CVR recorded material that wasn’t on the ATC tape. It is possible that the BBC edited out some of the ATC communications with other planes because they thought it was extraneous another reason why there might be stuff on the ATC tape not on the CVR transcript would be if the hijackers turned the cockpit speakers off.

The guy complains that there discrepancies between the ATC and CVR transcripts.

“There is an unofficial transcript of Flight 93
thememoryhole.org/911/flight93-air-traffic.htm> available which was released by AirDisasters.com, not by the government. In that transcript the remarks about the bomb are made in English by the hijackers and a little later made again by the captain. A careful comparison of both texts reveals numerous discrepancies to the wording and the sequence of w hat is being said. There is no way both can be correct, ergo somebody is making things up.”

I explained some of the discrepancies above, others could be due to transcription errors as different people transcribed them the ATC transcript comes with a disclaimer “Not 100% accurate, but as close as possible with tape distortion”. He said there were discrepancies but does say what they were. He is correct though there ARE serious discrepancies, this is perhaps the only semi-valid point he made. If one listens to the ATC tape this is quite understandable though: sound quality is poor, some times several people speak at once etc. There is a link to a recording of the tape [ 69.57.136.18/cvrfiles2/ua93.wav ] on the same page as the transcript which he didn’t mention so either he 1) didn’t look at the page carefully 2) saw the link but for some reason didn’t tell his readers about and didn’t listen to it or 3) listened to it and didn’t tell his readers about it because it undermined his case.

In both transcripts all mentions of the bomb (there are three) are made in English by a hijacker (see below)

“It is possible that the crew instead of using headsets would have switched air traffic communications onto the cabin loud speakers so that they would also be audible in the cockpit. It does, however, not explain why we can hear communications from air traffic control and another plane on the frequency, but we cannot hear the communications by flight 93 crew to air traffic control, although those should have been a lot more audible.”

This guy is very confused, it’s normally for more than one flight to share the same frequency airports have a limited number of frequencies and Hopkins was no exception (http://www.airnav.com/airport/Kcle I’m not sure if they would have been on any of the frequencies listed on this page it would have been the one for planes flying through Cleveland’s airspace but not taking off from or landing there). He doesn’t seem to understand that the transcript starts after the hijackers took over the cockpit so there is no recording of the flight crew communicating with ATC, just the hijackers trying to speak to the passengers and other planes on the same frequency.

He said all he has is the transcript so how does he know what is and is not audible but it makes sense that the hijackers who were not used to using the communications sets and didn’t speak English very would be less audible than experienced native born pilots.

“According to the transcript air traffic control received a communication that there was a bomb on board, but we do not hear the pilots stating so. Air traffic control ask another plane on the frequency whether this is what they heard and they confirm. This means that the pilots must have stated so on the frequency. Air traffic control could not have gauged this information from the transponder code selected by the pilots as this would not be accessible to the crew of the third plane nor would it be specific.”

“Ladies and Gentlemen. Here the captain, please sit down keep remaining seating. We have a bomb on board. So sit." Here the script writers for the audio/video presentation made their biggest blunder. According to the script those remarks were made in Arabic. Air traffic could have got them translated, although not instantaneously, and they would have had to figure out what language they were dealing with first, but there is no chance that the crew of Executive Jet 956, the third plane on the frequency, could have understood those remarks.”

He is referring to the part below but

1) Nowhere does the transcript indicate the communication was in Arabic.
2) His reference to Executive Jet 956, indicates he confused this part of the transcript with another part a few minutes later where the HIJACKER says they have a bomb a 2nd time
0931:
"Ladies and Gentlemen. Here the captain, please sit down keep remaining seating. We have a bomb on board. So sit."
0932:
"Er, uh... Calling Cleveland Centre... You're unreadable. Say again slowly."
The next six minutes consists of the hijackers talking to each other. The part he confused the above happened 7 minutes later. Once again he said it English NOT Arabic.
0939:
Flt 93: "Ah, here's the captain. I would like to tell you all to remain seated. We have a bomb aboard, and we are going back to the airport, and we have our demands. So, please remain quiet."
ATC: "Okay. That's 93 calling?"
Flt 93: "(In Arabic:) One moment."
ATC: "United 93. I understand you have a bomb on board. Go ahead.”
ATC: "And centre exec jet 956. That was the transmission."
???: "Okay. Ah. Who called Cleveland?"
ATC: "Executive jet 956, did you understand that transmission?"
Flt 956: "Affirmative. He said that there was a bomb on board."
ATC: "That was all that you got out of it also?"
0940
Flt 956"Affirmative."
1- It wasn’t the captain who said they had a bomb it was one of the hijackers calling himself the captain trying to speak to the passengers in the cabin. The pilot wouldn’t say “we have our demands”
2- Obviously the ATC heard the hijacker, he just wanted confirmation that he heard correctly. More of this can be heard or read on the ATC tape and trasscript.
3- The pilot of Flt. 956 couldn’t be sure which flight he’d overheard he was confirming what he heard.

“But we are made to believe that the hijackers were stupid. They tried to take control of the plane but didn't really know how to fly it. One of them is heard to instruct the other with short commands like "pull it down", "up, down, up, down", "down, push, push, push, push", "hey, give it to me"

Funny 9/11 CTists normally complain that these guys were a bunch of incompetent amateurs and say, though no airline pilots back them up*, now one objects when they aren’t flying well enough! The passengers had taken over the cabin at this point and were trying to break in to the cockpit. There were literally trying to shake them off. Once again he seems ignorant of well known aspects of the story.

He also complains that they said the wrong thing before crashing the plane.

“To emphasise the loss of control they suddenly all repeatedly say "Allahu akbar", but not the Shahadah.”

There three possible explanations

1) the translator got it wrong.

2) he’s wrong he is a convert to Islam and might not know what the correct phrase is before killing yourself maybe there isn’t a set phrase, maybe it varies from sect to sect or is personal. The pilot of Egypt Air 990 said “"Tawakalt ala Allah" before intentionally crashing his 767 off Nantucket. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990 ] nothing about Shahadah.

3) Al-Qaeda members were part of a fanatical sect it is quite possible their practices are different from the branch of Islam he pratices

* Except for one guy who got fired from Continental in the 90’s after he failed some psychological exams! LOL

 
At 26 April 2006 at 10:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

bullshit,baffle them with bullshit.

 
At 26 April 2006 at 10:57, Blogger Mustaqim said...

LOL indeed! Here is a guy who wants his cake and eat it or to quote him (selectively): "His objections are so silly ... he doesn’t seem to have studied the case well". So let's take a brief look at his objections:

"On flight 93 however they hijackers didn’t know how to use the communication set properly and left the mike keyed to ATC much of the time..."
To talk to ATC the pilot has to press the PTT (push-to talk) switch, which is located on the control column. So all that time one of the hijackers would have had to be holding on to the pilot's controls, which makes for some interesting flying.

"He is correct though there ARE serious discrepancies, this is perhaps the only semi-valid point he made. If one listens to the ATC tape this is quite understandable though: sound quality is poor, some times several people speak at once etc."
Please, do listen to the recording. There is no overlap, several people are NOT talking at once. The whole idea of ATC communication is that only one party speaks at any one time.

"This guy is very confused, it’s normally for more than one flight to share the same frequency airports have a limited number of frequencies and Hopkins was no exception.."
Exactly my point, if they share the same frequency then we must be able to hear traffic in both directions on the ATC recording, yet the ATC controller asks another flight whether they heard some screaming etc., but no screaming can be heard on the recording. Once an aircraft is under ATC control and assigned a frequency they are not allowed to leave it for another one until authorised to do so. The ATC tape must contain ALL communications between ALL the aircraft and ATC on the same frequency; it is not possible that we can hear only some and not others.

"...but it makes sense that the hijackers who were not used to using the communications sets and didn’t speak English very would be less audible than experienced native born pilots." I remember that we were told that all the hijackers went through some pilot training. YOu cannot even get a basic PPL without speaking English, and you will learn about air to ground communications before you ever leave the tarmac.

"He is referring to the part below but
1) Nowhere does the transcript indicate the communication was in Arabic.
2) His reference to Executive Jet 956, indicates he confused this part of the transcript with another part a few minutes later..."
No, you confuse what I termed "script" with the (unofficial) ATC transcript, whereas I was referring to the official Cockpit Voice Recorder transcript submitted in court. And this is precisely my point, the two don't match, neither in timing nor in content. Now if they covered the same event and are both genuine then they MUST match.

"Funny 9/11 CTists normally complain that these guys were a bunch of incompetent amateurs and say, though no airline pilots back them up*, now one objects when they aren’t flying well enough!"
"Funny how people who term anybody questioning the sanctioned version of the "truth" as CTists (conspiracy theorists) are so inapt in spotting their own contradictions. On the one hand we have incompetent non-English speaking pilots who don't even know the basics of ATC communication, yet at the same time we are made to believe that they manage to pull off manoeuvres in a jumbo jet which would challenge the most experienced veteran fighter pilot.

And finally: "There three possible explanations... 1) the translator got it wrong. 2) he’s wrong he is a convert to Islam and might not know..."
Here is a subject you know even less about than piloting a plane, so we get the usual subterfuge of blame a third party followed by a lot of conjecture and a "maybe" here and a "maybe" there. Remember, we are talking about a transcript submitted to court in order to convict someone, not the type of document you get translated by a friend who knows a friend who knows some Arabic. Court translators do know their jobs, I should know, I am one myself. If they messed up, the defence would make sure they didn't get away with it. But, of course, if the story doesn't add up it has to be somebody else's fault, for you can't accept that we are being fed misinformation - this would just destroy your cosy image of benevolent government. As Jonathan Swift aptly said: "There is none so blind as they that WON'T see."

 
At 26 April 2006 at 15:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Sahib Mustaqim Bleher
wie geht es dir??

your cv is impressive sir.

an intelligent person would note that if any one part of the official Sept story is a lie then it must ALL be a lie.

A monkey could spot the inconsitencies in the official yarn.

 
At 26 April 2006 at 19:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have listen to the tape from the memory hole of flight 93. Has anyone pointed out that the person who say "I have a bomb on board" has an Britisth accent? If I remember my 9/11 information that government release, These guys were coming directly from the middle east tothe USA to train to fly a plane. Them having an Brits accent tells me that they spend ALOT of time in England. You have to listen very carefully but you can hear it.



http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/flight93-air-traffic.htm



The other thing that should be pointed out is why ask for confirmation from the other aircraft that there was a bomb. Even the other aircraft basically says that is obvious and why are you asking me? the Air controller states, "just for confirmation". I think it was unexpected to have the other executive flight on, hearing it. They were trying to make it more real by making a confirmation, making sure that it was heard.

 
At 27 April 2006 at 00:07, Anonymous Lenbrazil said...

For clarity I converted flyingiman’s comments to ‘ALL CAPS’, left my original quotes in quotation marks and numbered the main points or my reply. I also placed lines of colons (::::::::) between our comments.

"On flight 93 however they hijackers didn’t know how to use the communication set properly and left the mike keyed to ATC much of the time..."

TO TALK TO ATC THE PILOT HAS TO PRESS THE PTT (PUSH-TO TALK) SWITCH, WHICH IS LOCATED ON THE CONTROL COLUMN. SO ALL THAT TIME ONE OF THE HIJACKERS WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE HOLDING ON TO THE PILOT'S CONTROLS, WHICH MAKES FOR SOME INTERESTING FLYING.

1) There was more than one hijacker in the cockpit so one could have been flying and the other speaking. It is clear from context that when the hijacker who identified himself as “the captain” spoke he though he was speaking to the passengers when he was speaking to ATC.

2)It is not uncommon for a single pilot to handle all controls of private planes and handle communications even during take off and landing many models can legally be flown with passengers with a single pilot (in the US at least) I don’t see why this would be a problem in a 757 equipped with a sophisticated auto-pilot system during level flight.

PLEASE, DO LISTEN TO THE RECORDING. THERE IS NO OVERLAP, SEVERAL PEOPLE ARE NOT TALKING AT ONCE. THE WHOLE IDEA OF ATC COMMUNICATION IS THAT ONLY ONE PARTY SPEAKS AT ANY ONE TIME.

1) Well we DO agree on one point listen to the recording. But tell me, why didn’t you tell your readers they could do so? It’s true that only one party is supposed to speak at once but things don’t always happen the way there supposed to. Your reply is disingenuous the sound quality is poor esp. when the hijacker talks.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


"This guy is very confused, it’s normally for more than one flight to share the same frequency airports have a limited number of frequencies and Hopkins was no exception.."

EXACTLY MY POINT, IF THEY SHARE THE SAME FREQUENCY THEN WE MUST BE ABLE TO HEAR TRAFFIC IN BOTH DIRECTIONS ON THE ATC RECORDING, YET THE ATC CONTROLLER ASKS ANOTHER FLIGHT WHETHER THEY HEARD SOME SCREAMING ETC., BUT NO SCREAMING CAN BE HEARD ON THE RECORDING. ONCE AN AIRCRAFT IS UNDER ATC CONTROL AND ASSIGNED A FREQUENCY THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO LEAVE IT FOR ANOTHER ONE UNTIL AUTHORISED TO DO SO. THE ATC TAPE MUST CONTAIN ALL COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN ALL THE AIRCRAFT AND ATC ON THE SAME FREQUENCY; IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT WE CAN HEAR ONLY SOME AND NOT OTHERS.

1) What is available is NOT the complete tape. Note the disclaimer from the original site: “The hijackers can be heard twice mistakenly transmitting messages intended for the passengers over the Cleveland ARTCC frequency. Please note that this tape is not chronologically accurate; periods of dead air (silence) have been removed for brevity.” http://www.airdisaster.com/cvr/atcwav.shtml . So one again you haven’t done your homework. They probably edited that part out to respect the privacy of the pilots in their moment of death. The FAA doesn’t normally release ATC or CVR tapes or transcripts from fatal crashes to protect the flight crew’s privacy, but they don’t do anything about sites that put them online. Airdisaster.com might not have wanted to “push their luck” esp. since 9/11 was (and still is) such a sensitive issue in the US. Obviously the flight controller heard something or he wouldn’t have asked for confirmation from the other pilots.

2)As for not being allowed to change frequency I don’t know if the hijackers did so or not but I doubt they would be preoccupied with FAA rules, killing people, hijacking planes and flying them into buildings is against the rules too. LOL

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

"...but it makes sense that the hijackers who were not used to using the communications sets and didn’t speak English very (well) would be less audible than experienced native born pilots."

I REMEMBER THAT WE WERE TOLD THAT ALL THE HIJACKERS WENT THROUGH SOME PILOT TRAINING. YOU CANNOT EVEN GET A BASIC PPL WITHOUT SPEAKING ENGLISH, AND YOU WILL LEARN ABOUT AIR TO GROUND COMMUNICATIONS BEFORE YOU EVER LEAVE THE TARMAC.

1) I never said they didn’t speak English* or know how to use their headsets. But they had accents and obviously weren’t as familiar with the communication system as professional pilots.
* At least I didn’t mean to forgot the well in the sentence above but my point should have been clear from context. Obviously the guy spoke English he did so through most of both transcripts.

2) Not that it really matters but you need to speak English to become a taxi driver in NYC too!

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

"He is referring to the part below but 1) Nowhere does the transcript indicate the communication was in Arabic. 2) His reference to Executive Jet 956, indicates he confused this part of the transcript with another part a few minutes later..."

NO, YOU CONFUSE WHAT I TERMED "SCRIPT" WITH THE (UNOFFICIAL) ATC TRANSCRIPT, WHEREAS I WAS REFERRING TO THE OFFICIAL COCKPIT VOICE RECORDER TRANSCRIPT SUBMITTED IN COURT. AND THIS IS PRECISELY MY POINT, THE TWO DON'T MATCH, NEITHER IN TIMING NOR IN CONTENT. NOW IF THEY COVERED THE SAME EVENT AND ARE BOTH GENUINE THEN THEY MUST MATCH.

1) I didn’t confuse anything, in neither transcript does it say that they said what you indicated in Arabic and you did confuse the first two parts where the hijacker said he had a bomb. You quoted the 1st (at 9:31) but the flight controller didn’t ask the Executive Jet pilot about it until the 2nd mention of a bomb (at 9:39). All three times the hijacker says they have a bomb he said it in ENGLISH according to the CVR transcript. The first one is not on the edited ATC tape but you didn’t know about the ATC tape/transcript when you wrote the article so we’ll just have to chalk it up to reading comprehension problems. Prove me wrong qoute where it indicates in either transcript that any of the bomb threats were made in Arabic. LOL

2) They don’t match perfectly because the ATC tape was edited and not transcribed properly which is understandable since sound quality was poor. There could have been some problems in the CVR transcripts the tape probably wasn’t in very good shape.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

"Funny 9/11 CTists normally complain that these guys were a bunch of incompetent amateurs and say, though no airline pilots back them up*, now one objects when they aren’t flying well enough!"

"FUNNY HOW PEOPLE WHO TERM ANYBODY QUESTIONING THE SANCTIONED VERSION OF THE "TRUTH" AS CTISTS (CONSPIRACY THEORISTS) ARE SO INAPT IN SPOTTING THEIR OWN CONTRADICTIONS. ON THE ONE HAND WE HAVE INCOMPETENT NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING PILOTS WHO DON'T EVEN KNOW THE BASICS OF ATC COMMUNICATION, YET AT THE SAME TIME WE ARE MADE TO BELIEVE THAT THEY MANAGE TO PULL OFF MANOEUVRES IN A JUMBO JET WHICH WOULD CHALLENGE THE MOST EXPERIENCED VETERAN FIGHTER PILOT.

1) I used the term Ctists for clarity and brevity. OK I’ll rephrase if it makes you happy “Funny people from the so called “9/11 truth movement” normally complain that these guys were a bunch of incompetent amateurs…”
2) I never said I though they were incompetent just that I saw your comments as a contradiction to the standard 9/11 TM line and they showed your ignorance as to the basics of the case, they were shaking the plane on purpose as was widely reported.
3) As far as them not being good enough pilots to have pulled off 9/11 that was address very well here - http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html
4) Find me ONE airline pilot other than that nutcase who got fired from Continental (years before 9/11) for being crazy who says those guys couldn’t have done it.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

AND FINALLY: "There three possible explanations... 1) the translator got it wrong. 2) he’s wrong he is a convert to Islam and might not know..." …COURT TRANSLATORS DO KNOW THEIR JOBS, I SHOULD KNOW, I AM ONE MYSELF. IF THEY MESSED UP, THE DEFENCE WOULD MAKE SURE THEY DIDN'T GET AWAY WITH IT…

We can’t assume that Arabic speaking court translators in the US are as competent as those in England for a number of reasons 1) things generally work better in England 2) As Sibrel Edmonds made clear there is a shortage of competent Arabic translators in the US 3) I’m sure the priority is to put the best ones into the NSA, CIA, FBI etc.

The tape was only used in the sentencing phase and any minor discrepancies in what Moussaoui’s co-conspirators said in Arabic is unlikely to have made a difference. It seems like he wanted to be made a martyr anyway. We don’t even know if his lawyers would have caught any discrepancies, I doubt they spoke Arabic and he did seem to cooperate with them very much.

Another problem might be that the translator might not have been used to the dialect spoken by the hijackers I have Lebanese and a Palestinian friends they tell me that SOMETIMES they have difficulty understanding Arabic speakers from other countries. This makes sense to me, I have difficulty understanding Cockneys and some Scotts and even some Brooklynites even though I grew up in NYC. Also we don’t know what the sound quality was on the tape, the CVR was badly damaged in the crash.

You didn’t address my other two points. Please provide a link to an authoritative source that says ALL Muslims must say “Shahadah” before martyring themselves that is not what the Air Egypt pilot said. Also you didn’t address the point that Al-Qaeda members belonged to a fanatical sect called Takfir wal Hijra. Members of the Takir sect don’t play by the same rules as other Muslims

According to the LA Time: “Today, the archaic, sectlike movement to which the suspects in Europe belonged sees violence as a sacred duty and regards even moderate Muslims as legitimate targets. But it also permits disciples to engage in "impure" Western conduct in order to infiltrate infidel societies.

"They don't have to go to mosques; they can even drink and use drugs to maintain their cover," said a French law enforcement official. "They can commit crime to finance their activities. It is like an intelligence service." ”

http://www.norwalkadvocate.com/news/nationworld/sns-worldtrade-embassyplot-lat,0,3646484.story?page=1&coll=sns-newsnation-headlines

…YOU CAN'T ACCEPT THAT WE ARE BEING FED MISINFORMATION - THIS WOULD JUST DESTROY YOUR COSY IMAGE OF BENEVOLENT GOVERNMENT.

I think you are basically a smart person but you are blinded by your religious beliefs “you can’t accept that” members of your adopted religion were responsible for one the worst acts of mass murder in history. You are more likely to be blinded by your emotions than I. I am an American but I hate Bush and the Republicans. I have voted in every election since I was old enough (1984) and always voted Democrat, I participated in various protests and demonstrations, opposed both Gulf Wars and was an American Civil Liberties Union organizer. I have lived in Brazil since 1993.

As an example of you being blinded by your religious beliefs I cite your curious claim that AIDS is spread by mosquitoes! http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/aids.htm

Lenbrazil

 
At 27 April 2006 at 00:15, Anonymous Lenbrazil said...

Anonymous said...
I have listen to the tape from the memory hole of flight 93. Has anyone pointed out that the person who say "I have a bomb on board" has an Britisth accent? If I remember my 9/11 information that government release, These guys were coming directly from the middle east tothe USA to train to fly a plane. Them having an Brits accent tells me that they spend ALOT of time in England. You have to listen very carefully but you can hear it.



http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/flight93-air-traffic.htm



The other thing that should be pointed out is why ask for confirmation from the other aircraft that there was a bomb. Even the other aircraft basically says that is obvious and why are you asking me? the Air controller states, "just for confirmation". I think it was unexpected to have the other executive flight on, hearing it. They were trying to make it more real by making a confirmation, making sure that it was heard.

- Nothing odd in the flight controler asking for confirmation he was surprised. I'm sure he never overheard a bomb threat before.

- The accent didn't sound British to me however most of the hijackers spent a lot of time in Germany before coming to the US. English courses in Europe normally teach British English.

- What did you mean by "I think it was unexpected to have the other executive flight on, hearing it" ?

 
At 27 April 2006 at 00:32, Anonymous Lenbrazil said...

At 3:37 PM, Henry Balfour said...
let's start with Larry Silverstein, the lease holder on the Port Authority site (BTW, the Port Authority, while sounding like an NY government body is actually Rothschild-owned - was that Jewish enough) who badly needs to step up to the mike and explain how the WTC 7 building managed to come pre-wired for implosion.
1) What about Larry Silverstein?
2) What evidence do you have that “the WTC 7 building managed to come pre-wired for implosion”?
3) What evidence do you have that “the Port Authority… is actually Rothschild-owned” it not even a private company it is an agency of the states of NY and NJ ?

You sound like a total lunatic.

Len

 
At 27 April 2006 at 09:49, Blogger Mustaqim said...

First lenbrazil says: "..the hijackers who were not used to using the communications sets and didn’t speak English very (well).." In his latest reply to me lenbrazil says: "I never said they didn’t speak English* or know how to use their headsets. But they had accents and obviously weren’t as familiar with the communication system as professional pilots." 8 minutes later he replies to anonymous saying: "The accent didn't sound British to me however most of the hijackers spent a lot of time in Germany before coming to the US. English courses in Europe normally teach British English." So they had heavy British accents picked up in Germany which made it difficult for them to be understood in the US - now I get it.
To clear up the confusion about the opening remarks in the transcript having been in Arabic, the transcript was reproduced as such by the BBC. As somebody pointed out here a few days ago, "The BBC transcript referenced in the article no longer states that the opening comments were made in Arabic." You would have to ask the BBC why they found the change necessary, whether they were just careless in their news reporting intially or whether they found it more politically correct to alter their report later. They have not added an explanation for the change.
As for lenbrazil's quoting that al-Qaeda are "like an intelligence service", I couldn't agree more, that's why some people have referred to them as al-CIAda in the past.

 
At 27 April 2006 at 15:14, Anonymous Lenbrazil said...

At 9:49 AM, Mustaqim said...
FIRST LENBRAZIL SAYS: "..THE HIJACKERS WHO WERE NOT USED TO USING THE COMMUNICATIONS SETS AND DIDN’T SPEAK ENGLISH VERY (WELL).." IN HIS LATEST REPLY TO ME LENBRAZIL SAYS: "I NEVER SAID THEY DIDN’T SPEAK ENGLISH* OR KNOW HOW TO USE THEIR HEADSETS. BUT THEY HAD ACCENTS AND OBVIOUSLY WEREN’T AS FAMILIAR WITH THE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM AS PROFESSIONAL PILOTS." 8 MINUTES LATER HE REPLIES TO ANONYMOUS SAYING: "THE ACCENT DIDN'T SOUND BRITISH TO ME HOWEVER MOST OF THE HIJACKERS SPENT A LOT OF TIME IN GERMANY BEFORE COMING TO THE US. ENGLISH COURSES IN EUROPE NORMALLY TEACH BRITISH ENGLISH." SO THEY HAD HEAVY BRITISH ACCENTS PICKED UP IN GERMANY WHICH MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE US - NOW I GET IT.

Note that I said “The accent DIDN'T sound British to me” but he obviously had an accent of some sort this coupled with the fact that the sound quality when he speaks is generally lower made more difficult to understand than the other pilots.

TO CLEAR UP THE CONFUSION ABOUT THE OPENING REMARKS IN THE TRANSCRIPT HAVING BEEN IN ARABIC, THE TRANSCRIPT WAS REPRODUCED AS SUCH BY THE BBC. AS SOMEBODY POINTED OUT HERE A FEW DAYS AGO, "THE BBC TRANSCRIPT REFERENCED IN THE ARTICLE NO LONGER STATES THAT THE OPENING COMMENTS WERE MADE IN ARABIC." YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK THE BBC WHY THEY FOUND THE CHANGE NECESSARY, WHETHER THEY WERE JUST CARELESS IN THEIR NEWS REPORTING INTIALLY OR WHETHER THEY FOUND IT MORE POLITICALLY CORRECT TO ALTER THEIR REPORT LATER. THEY HAVE NOT ADDED AN EXPLANATION FOR THE CHANGE.

PDF files of the government's official transcript are widely available including from this leading “9/11 Truth” site: http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/flight93_transcript.pdf
And this site which specializes in CVR tapes and transcripts:
http://www.tailstrike.com/110901.pdf
So according to the official story that comment was not made in Arabic. This would have contradicted earlier accounts such as the 9/11 Commission Report, which said the threat was made in English [ http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm ]. I Googled the “opening comments” and got 585 hits I looked at a few of them none of them said the first bomb threat was made in Arabic. If you are intellectually honest you will correct your story above.

There is no evidence other than your own assertion that the BBC ever indicated that it was. I find this very hard to believe they did because:

1) The BBC is one of the World’s leading news services it is hard to believe one of their reporters could have made such a blunder the US government official transcript clearly indicates what was said in English and what was said in Arabic. Also this would have made so little sense that any clear headed person should realized it was anomalous and double checked. It makes absolutely no sense that the hijacker would address the passengers in Arabic Even if a rookie journalist made such an incredible mistake I presume the Beeb has editors check stories before they go online.

2) As already stated the BBC is one of the World’s leading news outlets, lot’s of people read it. If one of their reporters made this huge blunder and it wasn’t caught by and editor surely someone else besides you would have noticed this absurd inconsistency besides you. See if you can find anyone else claiming they said this.
It is far more likely that you simply made a mistake, you clearly misunderstood other parts of the transcript like when you thought the captain had made one of the bomb threats and when you confused the 9:31 bomb threat with the 9:38 one. Answer me this when did you last read the transcript on the BBC?

As for the comments of the anonymous poster that “The BBC transcript referenced in the article no longer states that the opening comments were made in Arabic.”, this doesn’t help you very much because an anonymous poster isn’t an authoritative source it could have been one of your fans covering for you. Even if he (or she) was sincere we have no way of knowing if they saw the BBC page with the Arabic reference, they might have only seen that it did not indicate the threat was made in Arabic and presumed it did so previously because you said so.

AS FOR LENBRAZIL'S QUOTING THAT AL-QAEDA ARE "LIKE AN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE", I COULDN'T AGREE MORE, THAT'S WHY SOME PEOPLE HAVE REFERRED TO THEM AS AL-CIADA IN THE PAST.

Very clever you took the quote out of context. You can try to twist logic and fantasize that Al-Qaeda was in cahoots with the PTB/CIA/MIC/PNAC LOL, I guess you also think the videotape of bin-Laden admitting to orchestrating 9/11 was a fake too! What about Atta’s father’s admission (after first denying it) that he was part of the plot?

Just because they are “like an intelligence service” doesn’t indicate they cooperated with the CIA, the KGB was an intelligence service too.

Face it fanatical practicioners of your adopted religion carried out 9/11 all on their own this doesn’t mean that all Muslims are bad any more than the actions of the Bush administration means that all Americans are bad.

I noticed you didn’t bother to reply to my other points, so I guess you’re admitting that I was right on those issues?

Lenbrazil

PS - Tell us about had mosquitoes can spread AIDS!

 
At 27 April 2006 at 15:29, Blogger Mustaqim said...

In this very erratic post you now sound like a conspiracy theorist, lol, I got a fan to collaborate that the Beeb changed their story. Well, the BBC did change their story which they will confirm to you and which can also be verified from archived pages. You're welcome to ask them for an explanation yourself. There has been a lot of story changing regards 911, for example the telephone calls from high up in the airways where mobile phones don't work, which were later admitted to have been untrue. And when the story needs constant adjustment by the government and the media, I suspect someone somewhere is worried about the full truth coming out. Well, and that's all I am saying: the official story does NOT add up, and the CVR transcript used in the Moussaui trial is just another nail in the coffin of the propaganda.

 
At 27 April 2006 at 17:28, Blogger Mustaqim said...

The BBC have since sent me this explanation:
"Thank-you for your email. At the top of the original transcript handed to the court there is a key that indicates that where text is in bold,
it is an English translation from Arabic. After speaking to the reporter who posted the transcript on the BBC News website it appears there was
some confusion as to whether the first paragraph was in bold. It was clearly a mistake to say the first communication was in Arabic and this
was corrected. Sincerely The BBC News website"
No conspiracy on my part!

 
At 28 April 2006 at 00:22, Anonymous Lenbrazil said...

Mustaqim,

So now that you admit that one of your main objections has been shown to have been based on mistaken information when can we expect you to rewrite the above article? Leaving it as it is would be intellectually dishonest. Most of your readers probably won’t make it down to the post where you admit that the threat wasn’t made in Arabic. The honorable thing to do would be to completely rewrite it and post it again as a new entry in your blog. When you wrote it you thought it was correct, leaving it on your site uncorrected when you know it’s wrong is lying which you faith is supposed to forbid you to do. Admitting you’re wrong is not easy but would boost your credibility. I’ll admit I was wrong.

1) The BBC is less competent and responsible then I imagined they should have included a disclaimer that earlier versions of the page mistakenly indicated the first bomb threat was made in Arabic. If you look at the PDF file it’s clear that the threat was made in English and the reporter and editor (if one was involved) clearly lacked common sense

2) I admit I was wrong when I said you mistakenly believed the first bomb threat was in Arabic do to reading comprehension problems. But to be quite frank the BBC’s admission doesn’t let you off the hook. The mistake was so ludicrous you should have looked at another source, did you really think that people of pulling off such a near “perfect crime” would have been so stupid to make a blatant error? The adage that “if something is ‘to good to be true’ it probably is” comes to mind. Among the differences between “CT” and “skeptic” mindsets is that skeptics seek information to reaffirm and rebut their beliefs and CTs only seek to reaffirm them.

At this point how many of your original objections do you think are still valid? You complained that there are differences between the two transcripts but a lot of that was confusion on your part mistaking one part for another. You can’t ignore the fact that the transcriber of the ATC included a disclaimer saying his version was not totally accurate or that the tape on which it was based was heavily edited the events took place over a 30+ minute period were reduced to a 4 minute tape or that there could be transcription errors in the CVR transcript.

You said it is not normal to hear ATC communications on the CVR that is totally false. Linked below are four databases of CVR transcripts and tapes ALL the ones I looked at or listened to include ATC communications.
http://www.airdisaster.com/cvr/transcripts.shtml
http://www.airdisaster.com/cvr/cvrwav.shtml
http://www.tailstrike.com/database.htm
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/lastwords.htm

Most of your other points have been covered, the hijackers were trying to address the passengers but instead the mic. was keyed to ATC, the hijackers shook the plane not because they were incompetent but because they were try to prevent the passengers from storming the cockpit. Both of these aspects of flight 93 were well publicized your ignorance of them is another sign of you not doing your homework.

As for you claim they didn’t say the right words before dying you haven’t really delt with my possible explainations.

As for me being thinking like a CT I never suggested that the poster acted at your behest (you really need to improve your reading skills*) indeed it appears that he (or she) noticed the change long before you did. If I had made a suggestion it would have been far less paranoid than you suggesting the BBC was covering for PNAC rather than that they made a mistake.

Len

* At least when it comes to reading things that challenge or reaffirm your cherished beliefs

 
At 28 April 2006 at 08:10, Blogger Mustaqim said...

Well, at least we've established that you can't trust the BBC (nor any other mainstream news outlet for that matter). There is a very simple way of putting all "conspiracy theories" surrounding 9/11 to rest: to put all the facts in the public domain rather than classifying them. A government which is telling the truth should have nothing to hide. However, we've been given plenty of disinformation and pieces of real information leaking out here and there followed by a lot of spin. The contradictions emerging from that process so far have been enough for intelligent people to realise that they were and are being lied to. A majority of New Yorkers, for example, by now doubt the official story.

 
At 28 April 2006 at 14:11, Anonymous Lenbrazil said...

At 8:10 AM, Mustaqim said...
Well, at least we've established that you can't trust the BBC (nor any other mainstream news outlet for that matter)… we've been given plenty of disinformation…”


What a complete load of bunk! What this shows is that you can’t trust DR. SAHIB MUSTAQIM BLEHER (aka “flying iman”) or other CT bloggers. A reporter (and possibly an editor) at the BBC screwed up and made a mistake. They discovered the mistake and corrected it.

Contrast that with your behavior; you wrote a blog entry with lots of information that turned out to bogus. Do you admit you were wrong and correct they entry? Of course not! You let the misinformation stand. Only if your readers scroll down 30+ comments will they discover the truth. And what about the people who read the article before the truth came and haven’t followed this discussion?

You are far less trustworthy that the “Beeb” or “any other mainstream news outlet for that matter”. Anyone can make a mistake; honest people do their best to correct them. You’re no better that Rove and Cheney etc spreading disinformation because it suits their goals. Many in the 9/11 “truth movement” continue to spread disinformation (9/11 victims not on the SSDI, the Pentagon had anti-aircraft batteries, the lead engineer of the WTC saw molten steel at “ground zero”, Silverstein admitted to pulling WTC 7 etc etc)

And how exactly does this incident indicate you can’t trust other mainstream news sources? As far a I know none of them made the same mistake the BBC did. Most if not all serious news outlets verify information from more than one source before putting it in a story something you failed to do.

You have also failed to admit you were wrong on other aspects of your story like your totally false claim that you shouldn’t be able to hear ATC communications on the CVR. Nor have you taken into account that the CVR transcript is of a 30 minute tape and the ATC tape was edited down to four minutes and the transcriber of the ATC tape admitted that his transcription wasn’t total accurate. The brother of one of the victims of flight 93 said, “The quality of the sound [of the CVR tape] is really poor”*, if you listen to CVR tapes (see links in my previous post) you find that poor sound quality is common, They are 30 minute tape loops so are recorded over and over again before being replaced.

*[ http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:hldC0ofRc_UJ:www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/2002/09/16/news/local/4084323.htm ]

You said, “It took the authorities a long time to come up with evidence from the flight recorders which they had earlier stated were not recoverable.”

1) I don’t remember hearing nor could I find reports that the FBI, FAA or any other government agency said the FDR and CVR were not recoverable can you provide a source for this claim? They were found Sept. 13 and 14 (2001) respectively)
http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/hear.html
2) How long do you consider to be “a long time”?


You claim to be a Muslim, your religion forbids you to lie. By not correcting your mistakes you are effectively lying. At first I thought your were honorable despite being misguided. No I’m starting to have my doubts.

Len

PS - I recommend to sites that do d good job of debunking the BS
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/

 
At 28 April 2006 at 14:20, Anonymous Lenbrazil said...

"The contradictions emerging from that process so far have been enough for intelligent people to realise that they were and are being lied to."

Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn and Ward Churchill (all noted anti-Neo con lefists) said they didn't believe 9/11 CTs

"A majority of New Yorkers, for example, by now doubt the official story."

Not quite the question asked was "Some have argued that some leaders in the U.S. government knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to take action. Do you agree or disagree with this argument?"

I might even have answered yes to that. Just UNDER half 49.3 said yes.

 
At 2 June 2006 at 05:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a new vid I had not seen.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12018.htm

I've seen others, including all the DISINFO on Loose Change/In Plane Site.
http://www.Takeoverworld.info/disinfo.html

It certainly looks to me like the buildings were exploded and then collapsed from the top down. Doesn't it look like explosions and collapse to YOU? The buildings did not topple nor tumble sideways. They exploded from the top or very near the top and collapsed SYMETRICALLY, just ripped apart down the sides while exploding outward. WTC 7, it just collapse in the center without exploding downward.

You can come up with some story about that, but to me, any explanation which supports the official story is a stretch, which only works if you ignore lots of other stuff, and just isolate on one possible fact. (Like the new proof that Oswald's rifle could have shot JFK from the SBD window, which ignores all of Oswald's documented CIA connections.)

On Sept 11, and for some time after, I assumed "the Arabs 'got' us, slammed 'the Great Satan'". Without prompting by Lefty pundits, I suspected that Arab countries were not without grievances, and reading from the women of Afghanistan -- RAWA -- I was surprised that they had merely been warning the USG and the west for 25 years about the psychotic mujahideen that the US was actually SUPPORTING. At that point I assumed it was a guerilla attack, like everyone else. (I do recall having some vague sense while watching it on a tiny TV at work that the collapses were weird.)

But later I learned more, and then more and more, down the rabbit hole, so to speak. I learned about US official foreknowledge, that FBI agents had foretold of it in memos, tried to stop it, etc. We KNOW that FBI were tracking terrorist money trails. We KNOW that these money trails lead to government officials and people with oil ties. Most people never heard of the BCCI scandal, the "Al-Qaeda Int'l Bank of Pakistan" that the CIA used, Bush used, Dems used. We cannot know if there were real hijackers on board the planes --- that's speculation.

More to the point of the hijackers, it's circumstantial to say that it's generally not of the character of materialistic cokehead playboys to sacrifice their own lives, for some abstract cause, be it 'Allah' or 'repelling the infidels'. It's one thing to repel invaders in your neighborhood, it's another to do a plan a kamikaze mission thousands of miles away. Don't forget, Osama himself said he would only attack US mil in his region, not civilians, and that this was an attack by US and Israeli Intelligence. I'd add complicity by MI-6 and other Intells. (It's not "the Jews".)

What's more than circumstantial is the documented long-term relationship between Osama Bin Laden and members of the USG and Intelligence. The relationship btw each of the "terrorists" such as Mohamed Atta, and others like Adnan Kashoggi, who is tied to Ollie North and the Iran-Contra affair.

US political leaders like James A. Baker continue a relationship with "terrorist elements" by covering up the money trail to Saudi Arabia. I'm NOT blaming the tiny feudal Saudi oligarchy, like Michael Moore. Saudis answer to people like Kissinger and the CIA, and of course the Bush family. Many, many more ties.

Moore's implication that the Bushies were 'fooled' is laughable. We can KNOW that the gov is lying about this.

My SUSPICION -- based on available evidence -- that which is not kept secret due to "National Security" --- is that the "Arab hijackers" were as much patsys as L.H. Oswald -- a CIA/FBI operative just like Osama -- and that the planes WERE flown by remote control. That's what makes the most overall sense.

Quo bono? Arabs? Did Arab countries benefit? Did Iraq? Did Afghanistan? No, but RNC coffers did. CIA did. NSA did. The longstanding plans for Pentagon takeover of the US got a huge jump. Security contractors got paid. Heck, even tax breaks for billionaires and bailouts for airlines was justified by 9-11.

IF somehow some dumb Arabs were convinced to actually KILL THEMSELVES for this giant political blunder, we STILL know that these "named terrorists" had strong ties to CIA/FBI handlers, Defense Lang School, and members of both parties, and global financial and oil magnates, and in NO WAY were they rogue actors or "lone gunmen".

 
At 12 May 2008 at 19:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

?????????????

"Ladies and Gentlemen. Here the captain, please sit down keep remaining seating. We have a bomb on board. So sit." Here the script writers for the audio/video presentation made their biggest blunder. According to the script those remarks were made in Arabic."

I've heard the Air Traffic audio and those remarks were made in a crappy english !!! I haven't read the transcrip, but i heard the audio... your post stinks !!

 
At 12 May 2008 at 19:46, Blogger Mustaqim said...

Your are right: My post has created enough of a "stink" to cause the BBC to remove the words "In Arabic" from the opening sentences after first publishing the transcript. As with all the other detail, the official 9/11 story keeps changing all the time to keep up with the contradictions discovered by people who want to know the truth.

 
At 7 March 2010 at 10:06, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Indeed, it must be true that the BBC's correction was entirely due to your blog. (sarcasm)

In all sincerity, I implore you to consider the possibility that you are being delusional. While I appreciate skeptical alertness, secret conspiracies are not always necessary to explain conditions that lead to oppression and violence.

Maybe the global media (except for your blog) cooperated to fabricate the terrorists, but a much more likely and logical scenario is exactly what historical consensus purports: western, industrial nations, for decades, propped up mid-east governances that simply served to keep oil supplies available rather than serving their own people. Ambitious power-seekers have seized the opportunity to rise quickly by selling the notions of blame and violent retribution to the most neglected, oppressed and hopeless of these populations. It's a natural progression. The most hopeless, angriest people are not always the smartest or most devout. Why would anyone expect the terrorists to follow any particular ritual? The world is full of Muslims, most of whom do not think that the solution to the world's problems is to run around destroying Allah's creations.

Anyway, suppose all your theories were right--is there a point to the discussion? Does it dramatically change how to view the world's problems and solutions? Whether I choose to believe you or logic, isn't there an unchanged fundamental problem: westerners' ignorance and apathy toward effects that are imparted on distant, unseen people?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home