Monday, May 01, 2006

United 93: When the FBI meddles with time

When I wrote about the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) transcript presented at the al-Moussaoui trial being a hoax every attempt was made to discredit my post, and because the BBC in their report had messed up and described the opening passage where the alleged hijackers announced having a bomb on board as being in Arabic (something they later corrected on their news website) a punter by the blogger name of Lenbrazil who busily tries to salvage the lost credibility of the official 9/11 story on numerous sites, thought he could turn this confusion into proof positive that I hadn't done my homework. I have therefore decided to revisit the topic to show that the evidence has been doctored.

Since all information relating to 9/11 flights has been classified and none of the actual ATC and CVR recordings have been released there is very little evidence to go by, but the US government cannot hide behind this fact since all they have to do to dispel any accusations is to release the material. At the moment, courtesy of Airdisaster.com, we have a recording of communications between Cleveland Air Traffic Control and Flight 93 plus  some other flights sharing the same frequency together with a transcript of the same recording courtesy of Joe Vialls, whose website unfortunately disappears when clicked, but which has been preserved by thememoryhole.org. And we have the cockpit voice recorder transcript submitted by the prosecution during the al-Moussaoui trial.

I had made the point that what Air Traffic can record and what the onboard cockpit voice recorder picks up will not be the same. The CVR will only pick up ATC communications to the aircraft and those from other aircraft if they have been switched to loudspeaker. Air traffic control, and other aircraft sharing the frequency, will only hear what is said inside the cockpit when the PTT (push to talk) button on the control column is being pressed. If we look at the CVR transcript it appears that the hijackers confused the PTT switch with the intercom switch for making public announcements to passengers. This would explain why their announcement about a bomb on board is picked up by air traffic control. So let's assume this is what happened.

There are only two occasions where what was said on the flight deck of United 93 is being heard on the ATC tape, and on both occasions the alleged hijackers would have had to press the PTT button whilst not doing so at other times. However, since we can hear ATC communications from Cleveland and from other aircraft also at other times, those must have been switched to loudspeaker throughout. This implies that everything which can be heard on the ATC recording must also be recorded on the CVR. If some phrases don't match exactly we could put this down to difficulties in transcribing a tape of poor sound quality, although if you listen to it you will find that everything is quite clear and audible. But how do you explain missing bits? The exchange between Cleveland and Executive Jet 956, for example, is a lot lengthier on the ATC recording than on the CVR, including some heading instructions to move the aircrafts apart. Did the CVR record selectively? Was it editing what it heard? The CVR transcript provided by the prosecution has a continuous time stamp, so we must assume that it is the complete recording. Therefore, there shouldn't be any missing bits.

But it is the time stamp which lets the authors of the transcript down badly. Not only does the CVR recording stop 3 minutes before impact as pointed out by Philadelphia Daily, on this occasion it also manages to alter time altogether! There are two occasions where the hijackers talk about having a bomb on board and they appear on both transcripts. Both start with "this is the captain" indicating that they were meant to be announcements to the passengers. If you listen to the recording, a total 50 seconds pass between them. According to the CVR transcript, however, the first announcement was made at 09:31:57, the second at 09:39:11, thus making the gap between them 7:14 minutes. In other words, whilst 50 seconds passed on the ground, seven minutes and fourteen seconds passed in the air. It is true that AirDisaster.com added the following warning to the recording they made available: "Please note that this tape is not chronologically accurate; periods of dead air (silence) have been removed for brevity". It is impossible, however, to find anywhere in those 50 seconds of recorded ATC communications where gaps as long as six minutes could have been, given that this is a period of heightened excitement and activity. After the first bomb announcement air traffic ask for confirmation from flight 93, no doubt straight away, and then Executive 956 tells them that they heard something like there being a bomb on board. I am sure it didn't take them more than a few seconds to relate that information. This is followed by an exchange between Cleveland and Executive 956 which runs without interruption. Then there is a traffic warning to another aircraft, followed by the next bomb announcement. This is the time least likely to contain any periods of silence. Can you imagine an aircraft announcing a bomb on board and everybody going on a tea break?

So there are two crucial discrepancies, the timing and the fact that the CVR recording only picks up a fraction of what can be heard having been said on the ATC tape. Now if these transcripts had been the result of somebody taking notes it would be understandable that they may have missed one or the other remark, but we are talking about recording machines which cannot suffer from selective memory. I say it again: There is only one way the US authorities can dispel the charge that they are doctoring the evidence or telling outright lies, and that is releasing the actual recordings. There is no valid reason why they should not, except – to judge by the sloppy transcript job – that they will end up with even more egg on their faces.

26 Comments:

At 1 May 2006 at 20:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

See a doctor. Your delusions are becoming worse.

 
At 2 May 2006 at 08:41, Anonymous Martin S. White said...

Great work Sahib, you are awesome!

 
At 2 May 2006 at 09:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

thought you'd find this interesting:

http://tuckett.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_tuckett_archive.html

 
At 2 May 2006 at 12:30, Anonymous Londoner said...

You have again proved

They can't fool all the people all the time.

They don't stand a chance with you on the case.

 
At 2 May 2006 at 15:18, Anonymous Lenbrazil said...

WHEN I WROTE ABOUT THE COCKPIT VOICE RECORDER (CVR) TRANSCRIPT PRESENTED AT THE AL-MOUSSAOUI TRIAL BEING A HOAX EVERY ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO DISCREDIT MY POST, AND BECAUSE THE BBC IN THEIR REPORT HAD MESSED UP AND DESCRIBED THE OPENING PASSAGE WHERE THE ALLEGED HIJACKERS ANNOUNCED HAVING A BOMB ON BOARD AS BEING IN ARABIC (SOMETHING THEY LATER CORRECTED ON THEIR NEWS WEBSITE) A PUNTER BY THE BLOGGER NAME OF LENBRAZIL…

Call what you will at least I don’t intentionally spread disinformation. “Every attempt!?!” I only saw one short post that wasn’t mine debunking you.

… THOUGHT HE COULD TURN THIS CONFUSION INTO PROOF POSITIVE THAT I HADN'T DONE MY HOMEWORK.

You didn’t do your homework 1) The idea that the hijackers would have made the bomb threat in Arabic was so anomalous you should have checked another news source.
2) Your original story showed that you were ignorant of the basics of the “official story” such as that the hijackers unintentionally broadcast messages intended for the passengers over the ATC (air traffic control) radio frequency.

SINCE ALL INFORMATION RELATING TO 9/11 FLIGHTS HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AND NONE OF THE ACTUAL ATC AND CVR RECORDINGS HAVE BEEN RELEASED THERE IS VERY LITTLE EVIDENCE TO GO BY, BUT THE US GOVERNMENT CANNOT HIDE BEHIND THIS FACT SINCE ALL THEY HAVE TO DO TO DISPEL ANY ACCUSATIONS IS TO RELEASE THE MATERIAL.

As I already pointed out the FAA and NTSB do not normally release ATC or CVR (cockpit voice recorder) tapes although some are available on a few websites. Transcripts are only released when relevant as part the crash investigation reports. This is done to protect the privacy of the flight crew. Also in the US prosecutors don’t like introducing evidence into trial that has been released publicly. Just because a small number of paranoids think “9/11 was an inside job” is not sufficient grounds to change those policies. The only reason the flight 93 transcript was released is because it was entered into evidence at the Moussaoui trial. Also it should be noted that the CVR’s from flights 11 & 175 were not recovered and that the one from flight 77 was found but badly burned and not recoverable so for those flights only the ATC tape are available. Releasing them would do little to dispel such accusations because the CT’s would just claim the tapes had been faked.

AT THE MOMENT, COURTESY OF AIRDISASTER.COM, WE HAVE A RECORDING OF COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN CLEVELAND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL AND FLIGHT 93 PLUS SOME OTHER FLIGHTS SHARING THE SAME FREQUENCY TOGETHER WITH A TRANSCRIPT OF THE SAME RECORDING COURTESY OF JOE VIALLS, WHOSE WEBSITE UNFORTUNATELY DISAPPEARS WHEN CLICKED, BUT WHICH HAS BEEN PRESERVED BY THEMEMORYHOLE.ORG. AND WE HAVE THE COCKPIT VOICE RECORDER TRANSCRIPT SUBMITTED BY THE PROSECUTION DURING THE AL-MOUSSAOUI TRIAL.

I HAD MADE THE POINT THAT WHAT AIR TRAFFIC CAN RECORD AND WHAT THE ONBOARD COCKPIT VOICE RECORDER PICKS UP WILL NOT BE THE SAME. THE CVR WILL ONLY PICK UP ATC COMMUNICATIONS TO THE AIRCRAFT AND THOSE FROM OTHER AIRCRAFT IF THEY HAVE BEEN SWITCHED TO LOUDSPEAKER. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL,

I already pointed out to you that this is totally false. It is the rule rather than the exception to hear ATC communications on CVR tapes. I posted the links below to sites that make ATC and CVR transcripts below to verify this on the other thread. Since you are still saying this I can only conclude that you are 1) willfully ignorant and didn’t look or 2) a liar.

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

All the transcripts or tapes I’ve read or listened to include ATC communications. Consider for example this excerpt from this transcript of Alaska Airlines flight 261 the last American passenger flight on tailstrike.com’s database from before 9/11. RDO = Radio transmission from accident aircraft, Alaska 261, CAM – 1 Cockpit area microphone voice or sound source (Voice identified as the Captain), LAX-CTR2 = Radio transmission from the Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center sector 25 controller.


“1616:39.0 - RDO-1 - two eight zero and one seven seventeen thousand Alaska
two sixty one. and we generally need a block altitude.

1616:45 - LAX-CTR2 - ok and just um I tell you what do that for now sir, and contact L A center on one three five point five they'll have further uhh instructions for you sir.

1616:56.9 - RDO-2 - ok thirty five five say the altimeter setting?

1616:59 - LAX-CTR2 - the L A altimeter is three zero one eight.
1617:01 - CAM-1 I need everything picked up---
1617:02 - RDO-2 thank you.
1617:02 - CAM-1 ---and everybody strapped down----”

http://www.tailstrike.com/310100.pdf Pgs. 11 & 45


…SINCE WE CAN HEAR ATC COMMUNICATIONS FROM CLEVELAND AND FROM OTHER AIRCRAFT ALSO AT OTHER TIMES, THOSE MUST HAVE BEEN SWITCHED TO LOUDSPEAKER THROUGHOUT…

Wrong as shown above.

THIS IMPLIES THAT EVERYTHING WHICH CAN BE HEARD ON THE ATC RECORDING MUST ALSO BE RECORDED ON THE CVR. IF SOME PHRASES DON'T MATCH EXACTLY WE COULD PUT THIS DOWN TO DIFFICULTIES IN TRANSCRIBING A TAPE OF POOR SOUND QUALITY, ALTHOUGH IF YOU LISTEN TO IT YOU WILL FIND THAT EVERYTHING IS QUITE CLEAR AND AUDIBLE. BUT HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN MISSING BITS? THE EXCHANGE BETWEEN CLEVELAND AND EXECUTIVE JET 956, FOR EXAMPLE, IS A LOT LENGTHIER ON THE ATC RECORDING THAN ON THE CVR, INCLUDING SOME HEADING INSTRUCTIONS TO MOVE THE AIRCRAFTS APART. DID THE CVR RECORD SELECTIVELY? WAS IT EDITING WHAT IT HEARD? THE CVR TRANSCRIPT PROVIDED BY THE PROSECUTION HAS A CONTINUOUS TIME STAMP, SO WE MUST ASSUME THAT IT IS THE COMPLETE RECORDING. THEREFORE, THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY MISSING BITS.

Not necessarily it could have been drowned out by background noise or the hijackers could have turned the volume on the radio so low it wasn’t picked up by the CVR or changed the frequency or turned off the radio momentarily. Most likely it was a transcription error, the ATC giving another flight a new heading was not relevant to Mossaoui’s sentence.

BUT IT IS THE TIME STAMP WHICH LETS THE AUTHORS OF THE TRANSCRIPT DOWN BADLY. NOT ONLY DOES THE CVR RECORDING STOP 3 MINUTES BEFORE IMPACT AS POINTED OUT BY PHILADELPHIA DAILY…

The missing 3 minutes doen’t help the “tape was faked” theory, if anything it undermines it. Why would they fake a tape with 3 minute discrepancy? The FBI just could have said it ended at 10:06 and there would have been no controversy. The Philadelphia Daily proposed some possible examinations. Also one of the principal authors of the seismology study that calculated the crash happened at 10:06 later stated that "seismic data is not definitive for the impact of UA 93." http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-478.html


ON THIS OCCASION IT ALSO MANAGES TO ALTER TIME ALTOGETHER! THERE ARE TWO OCCASIONS WHERE THE HIJACKERS TALK ABOUT HAVING A BOMB ON BOARD AND THEY APPEAR ON BOTH TRANSCRIPTS. BOTH START WITH "THIS IS THE CAPTAIN" INDICATING THAT THEY WERE MEANT TO BE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO THE PASSENGERS. IF YOU LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, A TOTAL 50 SECONDS PASS BETWEEN THEM. ACCORDING TO THE CVR TRANSCRIPT, HOWEVER, THE FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT WAS MADE AT 09:31:57, THE SECOND AT 09:39:11, THUS MAKING THE GAP BETWEEN THEM 7:14 MINUTES. IN OTHER WORDS, WHILST 50 SECONDS PASSED ON THE GROUND, SEVEN MINUTES AND FOURTEEN SECONDS PASSED IN THE AIR. IT IS TRUE THAT AIRDISASTER.COM ADDED THE FOLLOWING WARNING TO THE RECORDING THEY MADE AVAILABLE: "PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS TAPE IS NOT CHRONOLOGICALLY ACCURATE; PERIODS OF DEAD AIR (SILENCE) HAVE BEEN REMOVED FOR BREVITY". IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, HOWEVER, TO FIND ANYWHERE IN THOSE 50 SECONDS OF RECORDED ATC COMMUNICATIONS WHERE GAPS AS LONG AS SIX MINUTES COULD HAVE BEEN…

The CVR tape like all standard CVR tapes lasts over 30 minutes (31:12). The tape on airdisaster.com lasts less than 4 minutes (3:57) obviously a lot (about 87%) has been cut out and not all of that is silence. The “missing” portion is where people are being killed and pleading for their lives, it is not surprising that would be cut out. It is not legal to put ATC tapes online, but the authorities normally don’t do anything about the sites they do. The site might not have wanted to push their luck and/or could have removed those parts out of respected for the dead.

So back to the drawing board and see if you can come up with some real discrepancies that can’t be easily explained. One wonders why if the ATC tape was available to the public and they were going to fake the CVR tape why they wouldn’t have just used it for the ATC portion?

 
At 2 May 2006 at 15:31, Anonymous Lenbrazil said...

Martin S. White said...
Great work Sahib, you are awesome!

8:41 AM

Great now you have the support of the rightwing tin-foil crowd!

And Bigots

Londoner said...
You have again proved

They can't fool all the people all the time.

They don't stand a chance with you on the case.

 
At 2 May 2006 at 16:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What drugs do you have to take in order to believe all of this crap? Anyone want to buy a bridge?

 
At 2 May 2006 at 18:09, Anonymous Lenbrazil said...

Sahib,

You said "the CVR recording only picks up a fraction of what can be heard having been said on the ATC tape" what else is "missing" from the CVR tape other than the ATC giving the other plabe a new heading?

 
At 2 May 2006 at 19:20, Blogger Mustaqim said...

The missing bits are:
Executive 956: [unintelligible] was reasonable, sounded like someone said they had a bomb on board.
Cleveland:That's what we thought,

then this bit is included: we just, we didn't get it clear... Is that United Ninety Three calling

then missing again:
Executive nine fifty-six, aircraft [untintelligible] transmitting at twelve o'clock one-five miles. Turn left heading two-two five. I'll get you away from him. OK, he's climbing so I want to keep everybody away from him.
Executive 956: OK, I think we got him in sight.
Cleveland: Nineteen eighty-nine, I have traffic for you in your eleven o'clock, fifteen miles southbound forty-one climbing, looks like he's turning east wide at three-six-zero.

Then comes the second bomb announcement.

PLEASE don't quote it all back to me Lenbrazil, I can't take any more CAPITAL punishment.
In fact I suggest you start your own blog if you want to tell us that the hijackers whom you told us weren't very familiar with the aircraft's communication system filtered those bits out or that they had to be omitted from the transcript because they would have upset the families. Or maybe these exchanges never happened and have been edited into the ATC voice file to cover the more distressing bits, Mr CT?

All I have been saying all along is that the two transcripts allegedly covering the same event do not match, not in content and not in timing. I don't have to explain why they don't match, the fact remains, they don't. Let everybody draw their own conclusions.

 
At 3 May 2006 at 03:28, Anonymous Lenbrazil said...

Mustaquim – I’m sure you do want me to just go away I’m debunking your pet theories. You’re right there are some stretches of dialog on the ATC tape that don’t appear on the CVR transcript. The longest part is as follows the part missing from the CVR transcript is in bold :

Cleveland: we just, er, we didn’t get it clear.[unintelligible] United 93 calling. Executive nine fifty-six, aircraft [unintelligible] transmitting at twelve o’clock one-five miles. Turn left heading two-two-five. I’ll get you away from him. OK, he’s climbing so I want to keep everybody away from him.

Executive 956: OK, I think we got him in sight.

Cleveland: Nineteen eighty-nine, I have traffic for you in your eleven o’clock, fifteen miles southbound forty-one climbing, looks like he’s turning east wide at three-six-zero.


United 93: [unintelligible] this is the captain. [I would like to tell you all to remain seated*] We have a bomb on board [unintelligible]


The explanation is simpler than I imagined. There is quite a bit of conversation in the cockpit recorded by the CVR during the interval.

"We just, we didn't get it clear... Is that United 93 calling?"
"(In Arabic:) Jassim."
"(In Arabic:) In the name of Allah, the most merciful, the most compassionate."
"[Unintelligible.]"
"Finish, no more. No more."
"No. No, no, no, no."
"No, no, no, no."
[…**]
"I don't want to die. I don't want to die."
"No, no. Down, down, down, down, down, down."
"No, no, please."
"No."
0937:
"(In Arabic:) That's it. Go back."
"(In Arabic:) "That's it. (In English) Sit down."
"(In Arabic:) "Everything is fine. I finished."
0938:
"(In Arabic:) Yes."
0939:
United 93: "Ah, here's the captain. I would like to tell you all to remain seated. We have a bomb aboard.


There are two possible overlapping explanations:

1) The voices of the hijackers and flight crew drowned out the ATC transmission

2) The ATC could still be heard but the transcriber left it out because it was irrelevant and distracting.

It is interesting to note that there are some discrepancies in the exact words of what the hijackers, other pilots and flight controllers said on the ATC channel in the two transcripts. If one pays close attention you will notice that the CVR transcript is a closer match to the tape in these cases than the ATC transcript. This reenforces the authenticity of the CVR transcript.

It is also important to note that the ATC tape was heavily edited (as indicated by airdisaster.com). It starts before and ends after the CVR tape. It is only after 1:15*** that we here the being of the CVR transcript, the first bomb threat at 9:31. Ten seconds from the end of the ATC tape American 1060 reports seeing smoke from the crash. So of the 3:58 tape at most 2:33 covers the same time frame as the 31:20 CVR transcript. Thus over 90% of the tape from that period is cut. It is also possible the hijackers turned the radio off at some point. The last ATC transmission on the CVR transcript was at 9:40 “Cleveland: United 93. Go ahead” so there was an elapsed time of 9 minutes. On the tape that can be heard at the 2:32 mark an elapsed time of about 1:15 seconds. Thus about 80 % of that part of the tape was cut.

The ATC transcript and tape can be found here:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/flight93-air-traffic.htm

The CVR transcript can be found here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4904600.stm

A PDF file of the official transcript can be found here:
http://www.tailstrike.com/110901.pdf


*This sentence isn’t in the ATC transcript but can be heard on the ATC tape.
** Edited for brevity see original for complete transcript.
*** All tape times indicated as mins.:secs.

 
At 4 May 2006 at 13:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

are u the same Sahib as on the Guardian forums?

 
At 4 May 2006 at 13:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

guardian Blogs I mean

 
At 4 May 2006 at 13:34, Blogger Mustaqim said...

Inclusion on the Guardian blogs is only by invitation, and so far they have not invited me.

 
At 4 May 2006 at 13:38, Blogger Mustaqim said...

Having just scrolled through their list of contributors there is nobody else by this name either.

 
At 4 May 2006 at 14:01, Blogger That Mash Guy said...

No not a contributor, there is a fellow poster, on the comment section called Sahib.

plus there was a link to your blog there today. in the comment section of one of the blogs. which is how I came across it.

 
At 4 May 2006 at 14:09, Blogger Mustaqim said...

That poster is NOT me.

 
At 4 May 2006 at 14:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

cool

 
At 4 May 2006 at 14:34, Anonymous Anonymous said...

nice blow btw

 
At 4 May 2006 at 14:34, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BLOG!*

 
At 4 May 2006 at 14:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank God that even the Guardian has it's limits. Any normal person at this time would take off the tinfoil hat.

 
At 4 May 2006 at 18:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poor little Mustaqim - his little fantasy was shattered and like Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again! Some one need to tell this tinfoil hatted emperor that he has no clothes!

 
At 5 May 2006 at 09:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice blog Sir

Thank you

 
At 7 May 2006 at 09:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ther official 911 story is so full of shit a blind monkey with no ears nor tounge could figure it.

 
At 7 May 2006 at 09:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.911timeline.net/

8:01 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 93 a Boeing 757-222 with a maximum capacity of 200 passengers and 11,489 gallons of fuel, rolls from the gate in Newark International Airport, Newark, New Jersey with 44 people aboard bound for San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco, California. United Airlines Flight 93 will sit on the ground for 41 minutes before taking off. There are supposed to be 44 victims on board, yet when you add up the official death manifest list that was published on CNN.com, there are only 33 victims.

9:00 a.m.: United Airlines systems operations transmitted a system wide message, warning its pilots of a potential "cockpit intrusion". United Airlines Flight 93, flying over Pennsylvania replies "Confirmed".

9:10 a.m. to 9:20 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 93 was hijacked.

9:16 a.m. to 9:20: The FAA notifies NORAD that United Airlines Flight 93 has been hijacked. (Reported as 9:20 a.m. in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) No fighters are scrambled in specific response, now or later. There is the possibility the fighters sent after American Airlines Flight 77 later headed towards United Airlines Flight 93. NORAD's own timeline inexplicably fails to say when the FAA told them about the hijack, the only flight they fail to provide this data for.

9:28 a.m. United Airlines Flight 93 -- An open microphone aboard reveals someone in the cockpit saying, "Get out of here!"

80) 9:28 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 93, "there are the first audible signs of problems, in background cockpit noise." Air traffic controllers hear the sound of screaming and scuffling over an open mike. They then hear hijackers speaking in Arabic to each other. Yet this is at least 8 minutes and probably at least 12 minutes after the hijackers had taken over the cockpit and done something to cause the FAA to notify NORAD of United Airlines Flight 93's hijacking.

81) 9:29 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 93 - Jeremy Glick, a passenger, calls his wife and describes the hijackers and is informed about the attacks in New York City.

9:35 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 93 goes off course near Cleveland, Ohio where it makes a 135 degree turn, and is now headed to the southeast. United Airlines Flight 93 is 375 miles from Newark, New Jersey and 280 miles from where it was now headed, Washington D.C.

Also reported about United Airlines Flight 93: ABC News has learned that shortly before the plane changed directions, someone in the cockpit radioed in and asked the FAA for a new flight plan, with a final destination of Washington. This should have been a big red flag, a problem aircraft usually diverts to the nearest field. Did the Pilot do this to signal Air Traffic Control?

9:38 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 93 completes its 135 degree turn and is headed directly towards Washington D.C. 9:40 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 93 transponder signal stops.


9:42 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 93 passenger Mark Bingham calls his mother. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham," he said, nervously. "I want to let you know that I love you. I'm calling from the plane. We've been taken over. There are three men that say they have a bomb."

9:45 a.m. to 9:58 a.m.: United Flight 93 passenger Todd Beamer tries to call his family but gets patched through to a Verizon supervisor. He said that the pilot and copilot were apparently dead, 2 hijackers were in the cockpit, one was guarding first class and another was guarding 27 passengers at the rear of the plane. He said that they have voted to storm the hijackers and the supervisor hears before he hangs up "Are you guys ready? Let's roll."

9:45 a.m.: Tom Burnett calls his wife Deena for the third time. She tells him about the crash into the Pentagon. Tom speaks about the bomb he'd mentioned earlier, saying, "I don't think they have one, I think they're just telling us that."

9:58 a.m.: Confrontation with the hijackers and the passengers begins aboard United Airlines Flight 93. Emergency dispatcher in Pennsylvania receives a call from a passenger on Flight 93. The passenger says: "We are being hijacked!"

9:58 a.m.: A frantic male passenger onboard United Airlines Flight 93 called the 911 emergency number, he told the operator, named Glen Cramer, that he had locked himself inside one of the toilets. Cramer told the AP, in a report that was widely broadcast on September 11th, that the passenger had spoken for one minute. "We're being hijacked, we're being hijacked!" the man screamed into his mobile phone. "We confirmed that with him several times," Cramer said, "and we asked him to repeat what he said. He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down. He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. And then we lost contact with him." This was the last cell phone call made from any passengers on any of the hijacked planes.

Bill Wright is flying a small plane when an air traffic controller asks him to look around outside his window. He sees United Airlines Flight 93 three miles away - close enough to see the United Airlines colors. Air traffic control asks him the plane's altitude, and then commands him to get away from the plane and land immediately. Wright saw the plan rock back and forth three or four times before he flew from the area. He speculates that the hijackers were trying to throw off the attacking passengers.

10:02 a.m.: After a review of radar tapes, a radar signal of United Airlines Flight 93 is detected near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

10:03 a.m.: According to the FBI, the cockpit voice recorder stops and United Airlines Flight 93 crashes near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, in Somerset county, about 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.

10:03 a.m.: According to the FBI, the cockpit voice recorder stops and United Airlines Flight 93 crashes near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, in Somerset county, about 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.

10:04 a.m.: Johnstown-Cambria County Airport reports United Airlines Flight 93 is 15 miles south.

10:06:05 a.m.: According to seismic data, United Airlines Flight 93 crashes near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, in Somerset county, about 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh. This is also 124 miles or 15 minutes away at 500 MPH from Washington D.C. An eyewitness reports seeing a white plane resembling a fighter jet circling the site just after the crash.

The F-16's from Langley AFB arrived in Washington D.C at 9:49 a.m. The F-16 has a top speed of 1500 MPH. After the Pentagon gets hit by American Airlines Flight 77 at 9:37, there is only one airliner left in the sky with its transponder signal off, and once again heading directly for Washington D.C., and that is United Airlines Flight 93. Flying at top speed these F-16’s could have intercepted United Airlines Flight 93 within 5 to 8 minutes depending on when they would have left. Why didn’t these F-16’s try to intercept United Airlines Flight 93?

Listen to what a former Pentagon air traffic controller says "All those years ago when I was at the Pentagon, this wouldn't have happened. ATC Radar images were (and are) available in the understructures of the Pentagon, and any commercial flight within 300 miles of D. C. that made an abrupt course change toward Washington, or turned off their transponder and refused to communicate with ATC, would have been intercepted at supersonic speeds within minutes by fighters out of Andrews AFB. Why there were no fighters from Andrews AFB up baffles me. If we could get fighters notified, scrambled, and airborne within about 6 minutes from Andrews AFB then, we could now."

Shortly after 911, a flight controller in New Hampshire ignores a ban on controllers speaking to the media, and it is reported he claims "that an F-16 fighter closely pursued Flight 93... the F-16 made 360-degree turns to remain close to the commercial jet, the employee said. 'He must've seen the whole thing,' the employee said of the F-16 pilot's view of Flight 93's crash."

Numerous eyewitnesses see and hear United Airlines Flight 93 just before its crash:

1) Terry Butler, at Stoystown: he sees the plane come out of the clouds, low to the ground. "It was moving like you wouldn't believe. Next thing I knew it makes a heck of a sharp, right-hand turn." It banks to the right and appears to be trying to climb to clear one of the ridges, but it continues to turn to the right and then veers behind a ridge. About a second later it crashes.

2) Ernie Stuhl, the mayor of Shanksville: "I know of two people -- I will not mention names -- that heard a missile. They both live very close, within a couple of hundred yards... This one fellow's served in Vietnam and he says he's heard them, and he heard one that day." He adds that based on what he has learned; F-16's were "very, very close."

3) Laura Temyer of Hooversville: "I didn't see the plane but I heard the plane's engine. Then I heard a loud thump that echoed off the hills and then I heard the plane's engine. I heard two more loud thumps and didn't hear the plane's engine anymore after that" (she insists that people she knows in state law enforcement have privately told her the plane was shot down, and that decompression sucked objects from the aircraft, explaining why there was a wide debris field).

4) Charles Sturtz, a half-mile from the crash site: The plane is heading southeast and has its engines running. No smoke can be seen. "It was really roaring, you know. Like it was trying to go someplace, I guess."

5) Michael Merringer, two miles from the crash site: "I heard the engine gun two different times and then I heard a loud bang"

6) Tim Lensbouer, 300 yards away: "I heard it for 10 or 15 seconds and it sounded like it was going full bore." Accounts have the plane flying upside down.

7) Rob Kimmel, several miles from the crash site: He sees it fly overhead, banking hard to the right. It is 200 feet or less off the ground as it crests a hill to the southeast. "I saw the top of the plane, not the bottom."

8) Eric Peterson of Lambertsville: He sees a plane flying overhead unusually low. The plane seemed to be turning end-over-end as it dropped out of sight behind a tree line.

9) Bob Blair of Stoystown: He sees the plane spiraling and flying upside down before crashing. It’s not much higher than the treetops. Accounts of a sudden plunge and more strange sounds.

10) An unnamed witness says he hears two loud bangs before watching the plane take a downward turn of nearly 90 degrees.

11) Another unnamed witness sees the plane overhead. It makes a high-pitched, screeching sound. The plane then makes a sharp, 90-degree downward turn and crashes.

12) Tom Fritz, about a quarter-mile from the crash site: he hears a sound that "wasn't quite right" and looks up in the sky. "It dropped all of a sudden, like a stone," going "so fast that you couldn't even make out what color it was."

13) Terry Butler, a few miles north of Lambertsville: "It dropped out of the clouds." The plane rose slightly, trying to gain altitude, then "it just went flip to the right and then straight down."

14) Lee Purbaugh, 300 yards away: "There was an incredibly loud rumbling sound and there it was, right there, right above my head – maybe 50 feet up... I saw it rock from side to side then, suddenly, it dipped and dived, nose first, with a huge explosion, into the ground. I knew immediately that no one could possibly have survived."

15) Linda Shepley: She hears a loud bang and sees the plane bank to the side. She sees the plane wobbling right and left, at a low altitude of roughly 2,500 feet, when suddenly the right wing dips straight down, and the plane plunges into the earth. She says had an unobstructed view of Flight 93's final two minutes.

16) Kelly Leverknight in Stony Creek Township of Shanksville: "There was no smoke, it just went straight down. I saw the belly of the plane." It sounds like it is flying low, and its heading east.

17) Tim Thornsberg, working in a nearby strip-mine: "It came in low over the trees and started wobbling. Then it just rolled over and was flying upside down for a few seconds ... and then it kind of stalled and did a nose dive over the trees."

What sense can be made of all these different accounts? Some say it was flying a couple thousand feet up and suddenly plunged down, some say it was flying extremely low. Turns, climbs, strange noises, flipping, etc. While many of these accounts conflict, virtually all support a missile strike, because of the common theme of noises and a plane struggling to rise and stay in the air. The plunge doesn't seem to be a deliberate thrust of the plane towards the ground, but instead the result of engine failure. Other passenger planes hit by missiles continued to fly for several minutes before crashing. For instance, two Russian missiles hit a Korean Airline 747 in 1983, yet it continued to fly for two more minutes.

118) 10:06 a.m.: and after "Lee Purbaugh is one of at least half a dozen named individuals who have reported seeing a second plane flying low and in erratic patterns, not much above treetop level, over the crash site within minutes of United Airlines Flight 93 crashing. They describe the plane as a small, white jet with rear engines and no discernible markings."

Susan Mcelwain saw a small white jet with rear engines and no discernible markings swooped low over her minivan near an intersection and disappeared over a hilltop, nearly clipping the tops of trees lining the ridge. She saw this less than a minute before the United Airlines Flight 93 crash rocked the countryside.

Dennis Decker and Rick Chaney, Decker speaking: "As soon as we looked up [after hearing United Airlines Flight 93 crash], we saw a midsize jet flying low and fast. It appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then it turned fast and headed out." Decker and Chaney described the plane as a Lear-jet type, with engines mounted near the tail and painted white with no identifying markings. "It was a jet plane, and it had to be flying real close when that 757 went down. If I was the FBI, I'd find out who was driving that plane."

Jim Brandt and Tom Spinello both report seeing a small plane with no markings stay about one or two minutes over the crash site before leaving. The FBI later says this was a Fairchild Falcon 20 business jet, directed after the crash to fly from 37,000 feet to 5,000 feet and obtain the coordinates for the crash site to help rescuers. The FBI also says there was a C-130 military cargo aircraft flying at 24,000 feet about 17 miles away, but that plane wasn't armed and had no role in the crash. Was the unmarked jet some kind of reconnaissance plane, and the C-130 a cover story for sending fighters in the area?

For more information on United Airlines Flight 93: http://www.Flight93Crash.com

5:00 p.m.: The first national television feed of United Airlines Flight 93 crash site -- A long shot, showing a 20 foot wide smoldering hole in the ground. Why does it take almost 7 hours to get anything on the television from this crash?

 
At 13 May 2006 at 00:51, Anonymous Lenbrazil said...

Actually the witness accounts are fairly consistent. It would be suspicious if all witnesses to and event seen by many gave the exact same account, that might be an indication there accounts were coached. It’s expected that that witnesses will give varying accounts because people aren’t camcorders they can misinterpret what they see at the moment and misremember later on. This is known as ‘the Rashomon effect’ (from the Japanese movie). The JFK assassination in a classic example some people heard three shots others heard more, some said the shots came from the Texas School Book Depository others said they came from the “grassy knoll”, some said the limo stopped others said it slowed still others said neither, some people identified Oswald as the person who shot officer Tippet others couldn’t identify him. If one studies the case histories of other crimes with multiple witnesses one of the few consistencies is the lack of consistency among witnesses. According to a British psychology professor “The reliability of the eyewitness remains one of the primary concerns of forensic psychology. Despite the huge advances in forensic science, such as DNA profiling, the majority of cases that are dealt with by the courts today are still resolved by analysing the credibility of witness accounts. Research and well-publicised miscarriages of justice have demonstrated that eyewitness memory is fallible” [ http://www.biomed.man.ac.uk/ugs/units/profile.asp?id=591 ] . Another expert on witness testimony wrote, "Research and courtroom experience provide ample evidence that a eyewitness to a crime is being asked to be something and do something that a normal human being was not created to be or do ... to play the role of tape recorder on whose tape the events of the crime have left an impression." [ http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zaid.htm#N_4_ the linked article discusses the unreliability of eyewitness testimony.]

All the witnesses said the plane was flying erratically and making odd loud noises, most say it suddenly pitched down many said specificly that it turned 90 degrees, none say it gradually turned. Several say it pitched to the right, none say it turned left. Except for the mayors neighbors no one gives any indication the plane was shot down, there aren’t any accounts of it giving off smoke or flames or debris flying off before it crashed. As for the mayor in the same article that quote is taken from it says “And, when you ask Stuhl for his theory of what caused the jetliner to crash that morning, he will give you the prevailing theory -- that a cockpit battle between the hijackers and burly, heroic passengers somehow caused the Boeing 757 to spiral out of control. "There's no doubt in my mind that they did put it down before it got to Washington and caused more damage," he said.”

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/philadelphiadailynews111501.html

The is some disagreement of the exact nature of the noises and whether or not the plane was flying upside-down, wobbling or spiraling etc but such disagreement is normal.

There is also some disagreement over altitude but that also is to be expected, eye witnesses are most unreliable when it comes to specific detail. Only four witnesses gave specific indications of the plane’s height. One said the plane was at 50 feet another said it was just over the tree tops they were obviously wrong because that is less than the length of the plane and it wouldn’t have possible for it suddenly pitch down as most witnesses agree it did, the witnesses probably would have been knocked over if it had indeed been that low. It A third witness said it was “200 feet or less off the ground as it crests a hill” was probably quite a distance away and might have been referring to the height above the hilltop. This also probably wrong as it’s barely more than the plane’s length. One said woman said the plane was at about 2500 feet. Others spoke in more general terms and said simply that it was “low” (which would correspond with 2500 feet which is very low for a passenger jet. Human perception of distance is highly unreliable and is normally based on points of reference on the horizon [ see for example http://www.yorku.ca/eye/distanc1.htm ] which wouldn’t be available to someone looking at a plane flying over their head esp. in rural area like Shanksville with no tall buildings.

[I’m not associated with the linked site but it is highly recommended]

Len

 
At 13 May 2006 at 00:53, Anonymous Lenbrazil said...

It is interesting to note that Atta’s own father who initially insisted that his son was still alive after 9-ll and had been set up later basically admitted that Atta was involved.

“El-Amir said the attacks in the United States and the July 7 attacks in London were the beginning of what would be a 50-year religious war, in which there would be many more fighters like his son.
[…]

Cursing in Arabic, el-Amir also denounced Arab leaders and Muslims who condemned the London attacks as being traitors and non-Muslims.
He passionately vowed that he would do anything within his power to encourage more attacks.
When asked if he would allow a CNN crew to videotape another interview with him, el-Amir said he would give his permission -- for a price of $5,000.
That money, he said, would not be kept for himself, but would be donated to someone to carry out another terror attack”
With a dad like that it’s no wonder he became a terrorist
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/19/atta.father.terror/index.html
Even the infamous Carlos the Jackel seems to believe that bin-Ladden was responsible for 9-11
The jailed terrorist Carlos the Jackal, whose real name is Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, was quoted by London-based pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat as saying: "I'm proud of the path of Sheikh Osama bin Laden." He also said he had followed news of the September 11 attacks "non-stop, from the beginning. I can't describe that wonderful feeling of relief".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/oneyearon/story/0,,790471,00.html
…He said bin Laden followed a trail he credits himself with helping blaze…
…Ramirez says he is a communist and a Muslim….
…Ramirez said he hopes bin Laden is still alive. He said if the Saudi-born dissident "hasn't gained martyrdom, he most probably will play a decisive role" in the war on imperialism…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62713,00.html

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home