Tuesday, July 04, 2006

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."

51 Comments:

At 04 July, 2006 10:55, Blogger CHF said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 04 July, 2006 10:56, Blogger CHF said...

Atta boy, Fetzer!

You're on to something big man!

Just keep on doing what you're doing now. Write some letters to the NY Times concerning the hijackers that are still alive. Contact the BBC and tell them about how the WTC was like a tree.

Spread the word, dude!

FET-ZET, FET-ZER, FET-ZER!!!

 
At 04 July, 2006 13:53, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Ameer Bukhari is still alive. The FBI polygraphed him. I just want to know what made him a suspect.

 
At 04 July, 2006 14:32, Blogger Unknown said...

Breaking news

Conspiradroids claim that North Korean missiles are holograms.

Word that North Korea tested a long-range missile and at least two smaller missiles, was met by derision from the big brains over at http://www.911blogger.com/

The idea that North Korea would launch a long-range Taepodong-2 missile is just nonsense said their spokesperson Jhonny Gold. "In fact, I have heard from a friend, whose brother once knew Cheney's mailman, that Cheney and Rummy and the rest of the neocons were funding the North Koreans"

He comforted America by stating that 9/11 truth expert philosophers and theologians were studying the alleged launches and were convinced they are hoax's perpetrated by the evil illuminatti. "Stay tuned" said Gold, "America can count on truthers to get it wrong, er, right!"

 
At 04 July, 2006 14:43, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Just to clarify:

Are you lying?

 
At 04 July, 2006 14:53, Blogger shawn said...

Ameer Bukhari is still alive.

Uh he died a year BEFORE 9/11.

 
At 04 July, 2006 15:08, Blogger Unknown said...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ameer Abbas Bukhari (امیر البخاری) was initially reported by CNN to be one of the hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 11 as part of the September 11, 2001 attacks, and was mistakenly referenced as being the brother of Adnan Bukhari - another man accused of being one of the hijackers.

It was initially reported that his name had been found inside the blue Nissan that Mohammed Atta had rented and left in an airport parking lot.

It turned out that Ameer, a Saudi, had died exactly a year before the attacks, on September 11, 2000, in a midair collision between his Piper Cherokee N9208N and the Piper Aztec N54235 being piloted by Roger Boromei, as both approached the same runway at Saint Lucie International Airport in Fort Pierce, Florida - both aircraft ended up crashing in a nearby citrus grove. At the time of the crash, he had logged 17.5 hours flight-time since graduating from the FlightSafety Academy in Vero Beach, Florida - where several of the actual hijackers were also reported to have trained.

Ameer was cleared of any fault in the post-incident report, which blamed the air controller who had started his shift three minutes earlier - media speculation, still assuming he was the brother of Adnan, suggested that the latter may have blamed the airline industry for his 'brother's death, and carried out the attacks on the one-year anniversary of his death.

An autopsy on Ameer was performed at the Florida Office of Medical Examiners at District 19 in Fort Pierce, Florida. The forensic toxicology was performed by the FAA Toxicology and Accident Research Laboratory, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The tests were negative for drugs and alcohol, as they were for the other pilot as well. The wreckage of the Cherokee was returned to Don Doohen, the maintenance director at the FlightSafety Academy that owned the plane.

At the time of the attacks, Ameer's widow, Lina Makki, and 7-year old daughter, Tala, were sacrificing a lamb in Jeddah to give to the poor to commemorate the anniversary of his death[1]

 
At 04 July, 2006 15:26, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Uh he died a year BEFORE 9/11."

That surely explains why the FBI said he was a suspect.

What about Adnan Bukhari?

 
At 04 July, 2006 15:29, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Why did the FBI have to polygraph a living guy (Adnan Bukhari) after accusing him of being one of the suicide hijackers?

What information was it based on?

 
At 04 July, 2006 15:32, Blogger Unknown said...

Why don't you research it and find out yourself? Why should we always have to do your work?

 
At 04 July, 2006 15:36, Blogger default.xbe said...

Why did the FBI have to polygraph a living guy (Adnan Bukhari) after accusing him of being one of the suicide hijackers?

well you answered your own question there, they didnt think he WAS one of the hijackers, they probably though he trained them

What information was it based on?

he was a saudi natioanl teaching at the flight school several of the saudi hijackers attended, you figure it out (didnt we go over this on the forums?)

 
At 04 July, 2006 16:18, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 04 July, 2006 16:49, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Adnan Bukhari is most certainly still alive. Unless you have any different information.

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?

 
At 04 July, 2006 17:21, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 04 July, 2006 18:14, Blogger BoggleHead said...

****I didn't ask whether it was a mistake****

I asked how the MISTAKE was MADE.

As far as I know there shouldn't be too many ways.

Let's think of some, ok?

It also might be nice if someone knew of an explanation that was actually given by official sources.

 
At 04 July, 2006 18:17, Blogger shawn said...

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)?

 
At 04 July, 2006 18:59, Blogger Unknown said...

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.

 
At 04 July, 2006 19:37, Blogger nes718 said...

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

 
At 04 July, 2006 19:38, Blogger shawn said...

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).

 
At 04 July, 2006 19:39, Blogger nes718 said...

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.

 
At 04 July, 2006 19:41, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 04 July, 2006 19:42, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 04 July, 2006 19:49, Blogger nes718 said...

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.

 
At 04 July, 2006 20:02, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 04 July, 2006 20:12, Blogger apathoid said...

For whatever reason (like flight 800) they shot that plane down

Perhaps they shot it down to prevent it from reaching its target? Maybe?

How does UA 93 being shot down bolster your conspiracy exactly?

Why shoot down the attack jet if you're the attacker?

Lay it our for me Nessie....

 
At 04 July, 2006 20:39, Blogger nes718 said...

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.

 
At 04 July, 2006 20:53, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 04 July, 2006 20:56, Blogger James B. said...

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.

 
At 04 July, 2006 21:10, Blogger Richard said...

Lol, yeah this is one of the situations where I would except "sounded like an explosion" as an actual explosion.

 
At 04 July, 2006 21:11, Blogger Richard said...

accept*

 
At 04 July, 2006 21:17, Blogger apathoid said...

Maybe the pilots regained control of the remote that had hijacked the plane. That way, they HAD to shoot it down to prevent witnesses.

I dont think the remote drone theory meshes too well with the airliners with people on them theory, Nessie...

I think you're a little confused.

That would be the dumbest idea brought forward by any 9/11 conspiracy planner. There are a million and one better ways to go about staging attacks with aircraft(and none of them are very good)

 
At 04 July, 2006 21:24, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 04 July, 2006 23:58, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Why does the remote drone theory need empty planes?

You're not the boss of remote drone theory.

 
At 04 July, 2006 23:59, Blogger BoggleHead said...

*grinz*

 
At 05 July, 2006 00:05, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Here's a tv plot that aired months before 9/11.

It has remote drones with people in them heading for the world trade center.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UuAVuuGkV8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ethewebfairy%2Ecom%2Fkilltown%2Flonegunmen%2Ehtml

 
At 05 July, 2006 00:33, Blogger apathoid said...

You're not the boss of remote drone theory.

Yes I am :D


Why does the remote drone theory need empty planes?

Because the pilots would notice that the plane is suddenly doing its own thing, which is curable in several ways:

- pull autoflight circuit breakers, specifically for the FCCs (Flight Control Computers)

- manual reversion, turning off the hydro pumps and flying the heavy iron by cable and pulleys(its a common misconception that hydraulics is absolutely necessary to control a large plane - it isnt)

- engage flight control shut-off switches

- kill the AC busses.

- disconnect engine generator drive(s).

- kill all elex, including battery, and hydro...

- any combination of the above

It would be a rough ride from this point on, but it would be better than allowing the airplane to fly itself into a skyscraper...

In summary, its simply not possible to use a remote takeover system for an attack if there are pilots aboard...its either hijackers or empty planes.

 
At 05 July, 2006 04:17, Blogger CHF said...

bg,

spare me we "we need an honest official investigation" crap.

You just want one that agrees with you and it ain't gonna happen cuz you've got nothing.

nesnyc,

another hilarious theory dude. They shot down a remote controlled plane?

How do you come up with this stuff?

 
At 05 July, 2006 05:31, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Thanks for pointing out a great deal of the technical data on flight control that these CT nutjobs were too lazy to look into. Of course there is one more thing that would have happened if the planes were "hijacked" by remote: 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!!"

 
At 05 July, 2006 06:05, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Boy, Bush and Cheney and Rice & Co. must REALLY get you guys mad with all their constant lying if this piddly stuff bothers you.

So the whole "Passengers saved Washington DC" story is based on theorizing that some sound was a drink cart? That and the second hand amplification of the call Todd Beamer made to the phone operator. And Loose Change bothers you so much you set up a blog? (Which we're all glad you did.)

I agree with bogglehead that the Bukharis have to be explained because identities are the nub of it. Somebody clearly was collecting identities of Muslims/Arabs who'd been to a flight school or somehow involved with a flight school or the Bukharis would have never been suspects.

And theres the one I keep bringing up: Ziad Jarrah's farewell letter to his girlfriend of FIVE YEARS being misaddressed so bad that it got returned to the US and the FBI got it. More planted stuff, like Moussaoui was planted and the "Rosetta Stone" in the rental car.

You know how Republican tactics are to accuse the opposition of your own candidate's weeakness? I.e., Gingrich went after Clinton on morals and Bush went after Kerry's military service. Is that what they did here, too: 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?

 
At 05 July, 2006 07:17, Blogger Alex said...

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.

 
At 05 July, 2006 09:35, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 05 July, 2006 11:37, Blogger nes718 said...

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?

 
At 05 July, 2006 11:39, Blogger nes718 said...

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?

 
At 05 July, 2006 11:54, Blogger Alex said...

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.

 
At 05 July, 2006 12:03, Blogger shawn said...

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?

 
At 05 July, 2006 17:11, Blogger apathoid said...

Thanks for pointing out a great deal of the technical data on flight control that these CT nutjobs were too lazy to look into. Of course there is one more thing that would have happened if the planes were "hijacked" by remote: 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!!"

Exactly, but its not so much the CVR recordings as it is ATC conversation. As the planes veered themselves off course, the pilots wouldve called ATC and told them of the dilemma and wouldve been in contact with them until they 1) let the planes fly themselves into buildings - or - 2) Shutoff the main battey (see my earlier post).....
Ms O'Brien wouldnt be talking about a plane that maneuvered let a military jet, she'd be talking about how the pilots reported the airplanes flying themselves and subsequent ATC conversation.

The probability that the government used remote takover systems that they fitted to airliners(somehow - without the airlines knowing) and took them over with the crew onboard is about a zillion to 1.

Hows that for implausability argument Boggs?

 
At 06 July, 2006 01:21, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Do we grill the police when they make a mistake if they end up fingering the right guy(s)?"

Depends on if the "right guys" were implicated by the same type of evidence, since whatever type of evidence that might be is clearly tainted by obvious identity theft in the case of Adnan and Ameer Bukhari

"apathoid said..."

hey man, all i said is that you're not the boss of remote drone theory :-P

i don't actually believe in it

 
At 06 July, 2006 04:21, Blogger Alex said...

"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...

 
At 06 July, 2006 04:32, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"In all my years on the bench," Judge Brinkema lectured government lawyers, "I've never seen a more egregious violation of the rule about witnesses." Although sorely tempted to dismiss the proceedings and sentence Moussaoui to life in prison--the actions, she said, made it "very difficult for this case to go forward"--, Judge Brinkema said she did "not want to act precipitously," so she sent the jury home to allow herself time to think about an appropriate punishment for the misconduct. After holding a hearing on the matter (during which Brinkema also accused Martin of "a bald faced lie"), the judge decided not to dismiss the prosecution case. Instead, she barred testimony by any of the seven tainted aviation witnesses and allowed the case to proceed. Moussaoui didn't seem terribly disappointed by the judge's decision. As he left the courtroom the defendant shouted, "The show must go on!"

 
At 06 July, 2006 04:50, Blogger BoggleHead said...

I didn't see anything about gloves.

 
At 06 July, 2006 05:50, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Again, previous and current lies by Republicans or other US government officials does not equal proof that they are behind 9-11. The reason why we know about THOSE lies is because evidence was prevented(or evidence for their claims was not provided). We have still seen no evidence of the 9-11 conspiracy.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home