Flight 93: Cockpit recordings of final minutes

[John Doe II]

Stickdog just raised a highly important issue concerning the crash time of Flight 93.
Here's another question dealing with this crash (and indirectly with the crash time as well).

One year after 9/11 the family member of the victims were allowed to listen to the cockpit recordings. They agreed that the passengers managed to enter the cockpit and all articles written (and the book "Among the Heroes" by Jere Longman) state that the last sentences the family members managed to hear on the tape was "Pull it up". Nobody mentiones the agreement of the terrorists to finish it.
But the 9/11 report writes that at 10:02:23 a hijacker said "Pull it down! Pull it down" After Jarrah had asked "Is that it? I mean, shall we put it down?". No word about what the family members had heard. No explication. Nothing.
Now my question is: How are the two completely different accounts are to be explained? Did the family members listen to a different tape? Did they had a completely wrong transcript?? Well, in short: What's going on here?

[woo me with science]

1. I don't understand....

What's the significance here? What do you think was going on?

[John Doe II]

2. Contradiction

Of course I don't know what happened onboard.
I simply wonder how it can be possible that the family members
listening to the cockpit recording in April 2002 (but they
weren't allowed to take notes). 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,687006,00.html

In all articles I read and in "Among the Heroes" by
Jere Longman (book based on interviews with family members who
listend to the recording) the conclusion is that the
passengers most likely entered the cockpit. Nobody mentiones
the believe that the hijackers decided to crash the plane
themselves.


On August 7, 2003 the story changed.
Now the FBI came to the conclusion that the hijackers decided
to crash Flight 93.
See: Congressional Report, p. 195
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html

One day later interviews of family members were printed that
they simply don't buy this as they didn't hear this on the
tape:
eg:
“Families of passengers who rebelled against hijackers aboard
United Airlines Flight 93 said Friday the FBI theory [...] was
based on 
‘limited and questionable interpretations’ of the cockpit
recording.”
[AP, 08/08/03]

Alice Hoglan, the mother of passenger Mark Bingham, had
listened to the recording.
“Hoglan said the FBI's transcript quotes one hijacker after
fighting breaks out in the cabin asking another hijacker in
the cockpit in Arabic, "Finish her/it now?" She said
she believed they were discussing whether to crash the plane. 
The response from the second hijacker, she remembered, was
either 
"wait" or "not now." 
[...] Hoglan said the hijackers inside the cockpit are heard
yelling "No!" at the sound of breaking glass [...]
and that the final spoken words on the recorder seemed to be
an inexplicably calm voice in English instructing, ‘Pull it
up.’
She said the English voice toward the end of the recording was
so distinct that she believes it's evident the speaker was
inside the cockpit.”
[AP, 08/08/03]

In the Commission Report only the version of the FBI is
presented. Not a word about what family members say to have
heard on the tape.
Here's my question:
How come that family members say: most likely passengers
entered the cockpit and there was no decision by hijackers to
crash the plane. The FBI says the contrary. How is this huge
contradiction possible.

This question is especially important in the light of the
facts that it took the FBImore than half a year to allow
family members to listen to the cockpit recordings (it was not
allowed to take notes nor to record this). Till today the
recordings are not publicly released although family members
asked for this.

Is the official explanation that the hijackers diceded to
crash the flight believable?

[izzie]

3. Face it people hear what they wish. They also put on their own spin

This is a bad place to say what people mean and I think it helps people to just believe what they want about their families at that time.

[John Doe II]

4. Things are not that simple

If this would be the simple explanation than why did iy take the FBI two years to figure it out?(Besides why weren't family members allowed to take notes? Why not simply release the recordings? This would answer all questions)
Family members had a transcript of the recordings in front of them while listening. This transcript was done by the FBI. I think it's unlikely that all the family members get the end of the recording completely wrong and just hear what they wish to hear (that their eloved ones managed to enter the cockpit). But I think it's completely unbelievable that all of them didn't manage to read the transcript. And even if this would have been the case, why didn't the FBI correct the printed statements of family members about the final miniutes of Flight 93?

[ladjf]

11. I have lost all faith in the FBI. It seems to me that their

main job is to cover up for the administration.

[woo me with science]

5. I still don't get it

Why does this matter? They still stormed the cockpit right?

[John Doe II]

6. They didn't enter the cockpit

According to the Commission report they didn't enter the cockpit.
Moreover I think the question is important how and why Flight 93 crashed. And why all this contradiction and why no proves are publicly released.

[ladjf]

7. Almost all airliners have voice warnings on the altitude and

collision avoidance instruments. The standard message for a plane that was too close to the ground without the gear down would have been "pull up", "pull up" usually in a woman's recorded voice.

[k-robjoe]

8. But surely

if this is what the family members heard, then the FBI - who made the transcripts, and organized that the family members got to hear the tape - would have made this clear to them?

[ladjf]

10. Your assertion is logical. But

we are living in an upside down time.

Where are the video tapes of the radar track information of the planes? That information alone, when examined by aviation experts would have revealed critical information as to what had happened.

For example, it has been speculated that some or all of the hijacked planes may have been flown via remote control. The technology is certainly there to do that. Veteran pilots have doubted the ability of the hijackers aviation skills to have been able to fly so precisely into the WTC and Pentagon. Those tapes would have ended that speculation. Why? Because the act of coordinating throttles,
altitude,direction and navigation for a jet liner is a complicated array of procedures. If they had been executed by student pilots, their ineptitude would been immediately obvious to experts.

I've wandered a bit off of your main topic. But, my point is that
so much information was obscured and changed that we have no way of knowing what actually happened on 9-11. (The tapes of the interviews with the FAA flight controllers were destroyed, no black boxes and the controllers have been threatened with jail sentences if they spoke to anyone about the events of that day.)

(I have been a pilot for 50 years with 5000+ logged as PIC.)

[RH]

12. Your assertion is not logical

If, as is often asserted, there is a lack of available flight data, how then is anybody to come to the conclusion that an aircraft would "fly so precisely"? Having looked around for hard information as to what trajectory, exactly, was flown towards the Pentagon, and at what actual speed, I find nothing not frustantingly vague, certainly nothing form which to derive any "precise" conclusion.

As I have also pointed out previously, for as long as there is nothing whatsoever to prove that anybody actually intended to fly anything into the Pentagon, their ability to do so precisely is a prejudicially spurious presumption.

And to the contrary, never yet have I seen anybody attempt to explain how it would assist a precise flight plan to go out of its way to hit five lamp poles.

Do you have an explanation for that?

[ladjf]

13. I made no assertions as to explanations of what actually

happened. My point was that from the information on the radar track tapes, which includes speed, altitude, attitude and direction, an aviation expert could grade with precision the level of expertise shown by who or whatever directed the planes. The fact that the tapes have not been made available arouses my suspicions.

Regarding the collisions with the light posts: All that tells us is that the plane was flying at a low level for a distance out from the Pentagon without hitting the ground. That feat alone, would require some skills to do.

I read DU a lot and post occasionally. I have noticed that on the subject of the Pentagon crash, there is invariably as group of veteran posters, who all joined DU in 2002 and 2003 and have over 1,000 post,(one had 15,000 posts) who jump in on the subject with
derisive comments to the effect that anyone who doubts the reported
facts of the incident is totally wrong, mainly because they aren't experts in the field of aviation and they don't have all the facts.

I hate to sound paranoid, but since this pattern has prevailed consistently, it makes me wonder if the "I believe the exact story that the government told about the Pentagon crash" guys have a hidden agenda, one that is pro-administration rather than pro-America.

I'd like to point out that the radar tapes have much more information on them than laymen would know about and that information has definite signatures of processes that tell a clear story about what the airplane is doing as it flies its path.

[tngledwebb]

14. Oddities within oddities re 9/11

are endless, and this forum is an interesting example. You raise some excellent points. I don't know the answers to 9/11 oddities but those who suffer with the OCT complex seem to have near absolute faith in the 'Official Story' and the 'Official' reports. That is VERY odd indeed.

[frylock]

15. i agree very strongly with about everything you've stated in this post..

some people evidently believe that piloting a commercial airliner is as simple as driving a car. Whoever drove that "plane" into the Pentagon did it with the skill and precision of a seasoned tailhooker.

[ladjf]

19. Some veteran fighter pilots commented the same as you on this.

[RH]

24. which continues to beg the question.

What did they presume to comment upon?

I have never seen any hard data.

Nobody here would appear to have seen any hard data, so how then would they presume to opine?

[RH]

17. That feat alone?

I see no proof whatsoever of any feat.

A meteor that fell from the sky may as well have followed the same course over Columbia Pike except for this:

To hit the lamp poles the plane had to dive down at a trjectory of about two degrees above level only then to level out to about one degree above level to hit the building. If it had flown directly to the Pentagon it would have skimmed over the top of the poles. That to my my mind is hardly a proof of any feat. It speaks to me of recklessnes. There was simply no need for a professionally planned trajectory to risk a collision with the poles, nor with the Navy Annex, which it missed by no more than a few feet.

So why then insist upon endorsing the official version, that the Pentagon was an intended target, but with no actual reason or evidence to support the official version, only then to continue perversely with this "I hate to sound paranoid" line?

:shrug:

[seatnineb]

18. Wrong

rh....

I am suprised.

You need to get up to date with the Official story......

9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed claims to have assigned the Pentagon specifically to Hani Hanjour,the operation's most experienced Pilot.
Interrogation Of Khalid Sheik Mohammed

9/11 Commission report.
Page 530.

[RH]

22. That's not proof.

That's a hearsay claim.

[seatnineb]

25. Hearsay?

Hearsay?

The following was extracted from an Intelligence Report.
Dated Febuary 20th,2004.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed claims to have assigned the Pentagon specifically to Hani Hanjour,the operation's most experienced Pilot.
Interrogation of Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
9/11 Commision report .
page 530.

rh.......

Please explain how information extracted directly from an individual in federal custody and then published with the approval of Congress, can be construed as hearsay?

[RH]

29. Would you take the word,

(if sat in a jury) of an intelligence report but with no witness present to confirm, with no cross examination. Was a defense lawyer present during interogation? Was KSM read his rights?

I am honestly surprised to see any reliance upon this sort of thing. Since when did you think that a government intelligence report is Gospel per se? The double standard is astounding.

[ladjf]

20. rh "I see no proof whatsoever of any feat"

The fact that you so no proof doesn't prove it that flying the plane into the Pentagon wasn't a feat. It suggest to me that you aren't familiar with aviation or the flight path of that plane that day.

As for the "hate to sound paranoid": That had nothing to do with
the event. It had to do with about a dozen posters who suddenly,and in my opinion inexplicably, strongly challenge anyone who is skeptical of the official story as being wrong in a variety of ways.

[RH]

23. That's right.

Seeing nothing proves nothing and not least would it prove a negative.

What else is new?

I explained what is to be seen, hence the flight trajectory. You talk around the issue instead of dealing with it. That suggests to me that you are not familiar with the flight path of that plane that day, the actual circumstance I refer to, the goegraphy of the vicinity.

I you somehow know better let's hear how come.

If "hate to sound paranoid" had nothing to do with
the event, then why not stick to the subject?

[seatnineb]

9. Cockpit take-over.

So lets get this straight.

For Flight 93:
2 Arabs managed to bulldoze there way into this cockpit despite the fact that the pilots by this point,had already been warned about possible cockpit intrusions.

Yet at least 4 burly American patriots armed with a trolley cart could not break into this very same cockpit!

:crazy:

[John Doe II]

16. Thanks for the ino

Thanks. I didn't know that. This might help explaining a bit. But still it certainly doesn't explain why the family members didn't hear the hijacker's decision to crash the plane. And (as stated by k-robjoe)The FBI that made the transcript certainly should and must have explained that the voice saying "Pull it up" is not a voice from inside the cockpit.

[ladjf]

21. Somewhere on the INTERNET there are recordings from

the cockpits of airliners prior to crashes. (I don't know the URL, try goggle). In several of those, the voice recording of the flight director could be heard saying the words "pull up, pull up".

Slightly changing the subject;

A collision over Switzerland a couple of years ago between a Russian plane and a German plan occurred as the two neared each other, the collision avoidance system (CAS) clearly instructed them to "dive,dive"
but the controller told them to climb. (I might have that back wards)
As it turned out, the CAS was correct and the controller, who was talking on the phone at the time (about another problem), was wrong.
The planes collided killing all. In the U.S., the regulation states that the pilots are supposed to go with the CAS rather than the traffic controller.

[John Doe II]

26. Psychological explanations don't work

CNN stated about the way family members were finally allowed to listen to the recordings:

"The families listened to the tape through headphones while transcripts, including English translations of Arabic words, were displayed on screens."
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/04/19/rec.flight.93.families/

So, why then, if the "English translation of Arabic words, were displayed on screens" did no family member realize that the hijackers decided to crash the plane as written in the Report???

[John Doe II]

27. Family members didn't hear ALLAH

Another difference between what the family members heard when listening to the recordings and what the Commission claims to be heard on them:

Jarrah stopped the violent maneuvers at about 10:01:00 and said, "Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!" <...> The airplane rolled on its back, and one of the hijackers began shouting "Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest".
(p. 14)

Certainly it's good to know that the hijackers are believers in Allah. Only when the family member listened to the recordings none of them recalled the religious exclamation of the fundamentalist terroists.

So another difference. Are family members and Commission really talking about the same recording??

[John Doe II]

28. I take 27 back

I've to correct myself.
Among the Heroes:
The hijackers could be heard praying "God is great" (p. 377).
Even if this doesn't correspond 100% to the Report I think this becomes too speculative and doesn't help.