Uncle Fetzer Wrong Again
It might save us all time if I started counting up the truthful things that Fetzer says, rather than tallying up the lies and mistakes. In his appearance (MP3 file) with Alan Colmes, Fetzer claimed (around 12:00):
Fetzer: You know in the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui, the government introduced a tape recording that was ostensibly from Flight 93, which of course was the plane that allegedly went down in Pennsylvania, and it included a cockpit voice recording of the passengers talking about how they were going to use a drink cart to break down the cabin door, but Alan, as an astute observer pointed out to me, cockpit voice recorders do not record voices in the passenger compartment.
There are two things wrong here. First, cockpit voice recorders can pick up voices from the passenger compartment, if they're loud enough and they're close enough to the cabin door, which is not soundproofed.
Despite the detail — and because the cockpit ceiling microphone can pick up sounds from the passenger cabin, particularly if the cockpit door is open — there were multiple interpretations of the final seconds.
And second, the CVR did not pick up the passengers' plan to use a drink car to break down the cabin door.
What it picks up is an enormous crash, described as metal against metal, glass breaking, plastic crashing. The 9-11 Commission theorized (rather logically) that it was a drink cart being used as a battering ram. In fact, the only words that definitely appear to be from outside the cockpit are, "In the cockpit. If we don't, we'll die."
posted by Pat @ 9:47 AM
25 comments
25 Comments:
Ameer Bukhari is still alive.
Uh he died a year BEFORE 9/11.
hat surely explains why the FBI said he was a suspect.
What about Adnan Bukhari?
God forbid someone makes a mistake.
And stop saying he's alive, he isn't. He died in an accident a year before 9/11.
Also he was accused of being one of the hijackers. Not just for being associated with them at the flight schools. He was actually accused of dying aboard the flight.
Why?
I believe it's called a mistake. I'm sure there were other suspects besides OJ when Nicole Brown died, too.
The government isn't god.
It also might be nice if someone knew of an explanation that was actually given by official sources.
They found documents linking back to Ameer, and probably didn't know he was dead (or do they have a list of every Saudi on the planet?). They then looked into other male members of his family.
Do we grill the police when they make a mistake if they end up fingering the right guy(s)?
Here's a Link: (Flight 93 cockpit recording is a hoax (update)).
I realise that for those who won't countenance the idea that the govt. is lying will find this argument unconvinciing. Honestly, taken alone, I don't find it that strong.
As I say over and over again, I don't see the purpose here as doing the investigation and settling the argument. I do demand an honest official investigation.
The 9-11 Commission theorized (rather logically) that it was a drink cart being used as a battering ram.
Theorized? Isn't that what you accuse us of not being proof? You can't have it both ways.
Regardless, in other news, the CIA has given up the search for (the dead) Bin Laden, told you so...
Report: CIA unit that hunted bin Laden closed
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.
Someone isn't familiar with how criminal trials tend to go...
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.
Hmmm maybe in order to streamline the proceedings (and to simplify things for the jurors and have greater emotional impact), they had both play as they would in real time?
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.
I assume he hasn't seen United 93. In the film they overhear the Arabic and have no idea what he's saying. (Arabic isn't a hard language to discern, however.)
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.
I have watched dozens of Chechen and Iraq videos and in each the folks behind the camera continually chant "Allahu ackbar" (although it may not have been Chechens behind the camera in those videos, as many non-nationals have fought in the war against Russia). Perhaps this Muslim is in a state of denial? How does the writer know if the government used a machine translation or not?
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.
And we know they're aware of this how? We do know they knew how to fly, but would they necessarily understand depressurization?
To emphasise the loss of control they suddenly all repeatedly say "Allahu akbar", but not the Shahadah.
Gameel Al-Batouti did not utter the shanadah ("There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is His prophet") as he crashed his Egypt Air flight into the ocean near Nantucket. He continually said, "Tawakalt ala Allah" (I put my trust in Allah).
What it picks up is an enormous crash, described as metal against metal, glass breaking, plastic crashing.
Ah, the plane getting hit by a fighter Jet.
Theorized? Isn't that what you accuse us of not being proof? You can't have it both ways.
Since you're not the brightest bulb, I'll spell it out for you. "Theory" means either a grounded, testable hypothesis or speculation (which can be wild as anything). When we say conspiracy theory we're referring to the latter definition.
Ah, the plane getting hit by a fighter Jet.
I think you meant it was hit by a missle (from a jet). You don't tend to ram targets (unless you're part of the Japanese Imperial Army).
It makes no sense for the government to say "we would've shot it down if we got there on time" and deny shooting it down. The whole heroic story of the passengers didn't come out till much later, and their denial of a shot-down plane came much sooner.
The whole heroic story of the passengers didn't come out till much later, and their denial of a shot-down plane came much sooner.
For whatever reason (like flight 800) they shot that plane down. But the heroic story could have well been concocted to cover up the shoot down.
For whatever reason (like flight 800) they shot that plane down.
Well if they shot down 93 it was because it was hijacked, dumbass.
But the heroic story could have well been concocted to cover up the shoot down.
Except a lot of people are pissed they DIDN'T shoot any planes down. Many of you intellectual heavyweights have complained of just that same thing. To shut you all up they just say they shot down the plane. Common sense is not your strong suit.
How does UA 93 being shot down bolster your conspiracy exactly?
Maybe the pilots regained control of the remote that had hijacked the plane. That way, they HAD to shoot it down to prevent witnesses.
However, if this plane was unmanned, it could be holding in PA just in case one of the first two missed their target at the Trade Center. The plane was no longer needed so it was shot down.
Maybe the pilots regained control of the remote that had hijacked the plane. That way, they HAD to shoot it down to prevent witnesses
"Maybe". Don't you think someone on the phone to their loved ones would say "oh shit the plane's flying itself"?
However, if this plane was unmanned, it could be holding in PA just in case one of the first two missed their target at the Trade Center. The plane was no longer needed so it was shot down.
Too bad it didn't fly in a holding pattern and wasn't unmanned.
What it picks up is an enormous crash, described as metal against metal, glass breaking, plastic crashing.
Ah, the plane getting hit by a fighter Jet.
LOL Thankfully, I have never been in a plane hit by a sidewinder missile, but somehow I doubt it would sound like glass breaking.
Lol, yeah this is one of the situations where I would except "sounded like an explosion" as an actual explosion.
accept*
I dont think the remote drone theory meshes too well with the airliners with people on them theory, Nessie...
Yeah he doesn't seem to get the remote planes 'theory' has empty planes.
Yes Joan, you're a friggin psych major now. Good job. Thank you for exposing the conspiracy. I'd pin a medal on ya if I could.
You know how Republican tactics are to accuse the opposition of your own candidate's weeakness?
Except that's a tactic used by both parties.
Say that Osama bin Laden did 9/11 because he wanted to provoke World War IV between the Muslims and the West but the truth was that they were ascribing their own motives and plans to bin Laden?
We'd be on WWIII, not IV (I know some people call the Cold War WWIII, but it already has a named). They weren't ascribing their own motives and plans. For thirty years Muslims extremists have been attacking the West. Probably the first event in the Age of Terrorism is the Munich Olympics.
Osama and his ilk do want a caliphate, it's the whole job of Islam to spread it throughout the world.
I have never been in a plane hit by a sidewinder missile, but somehow I doubt it would sound like glass breaking.
Since you were never in a shoot down, then you could never know now could you?
A LOT of CVR and radio transmissions from all four planes would have had LONG conversations about: "WTF is going on the plane is FLYING itself!!"
Let's see, no radio contact and "lost" black boxes. How do you figure?
Since you were never in a shoot down, then you could never know now could you?
You really make me want to beat my head against the keyboard.
On the bright side, by your logic you've just proven that you have no clue what you're talking about. If no steel framed building has ever collapsed (according to you), then you've never seen a steel framed building collapse naturaly, and therefore you have no idea what an uncontrolled demolition looks like. Therefore all of your idiotic statements about the WTC collapses looking like a CD are useless because you have nothing to compare them to.
Not that I expect you to ever apply even your own unique brand of logic to any of your arguments.
Since you were never in a shoot down, then you could never know now could you?
Well you would've heard an explosion, then nothing. Breaking glass would've been overridden by the explosive sound.
Let's see, no radio contact and "lost" black boxes. How do you figure?
They had contact with the plane, they found the black boxes. How do you figure?
"since whatever type of evidence that might be is clearly tainted by obvious identity theft in the case of Adnan and Ameer Bukhari"
Or, as another genius once said....
"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit"
actually, I never bought his argument either...
Post a Comment
<< Home