Okay, so what about this Betty Ong tape?

[CaptainMidnight]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-01-27-911-ong-usat_x.htm

They've been floggin it in the news the past coupla days, playing at the 9-11 Commission hearings.

Real?

Fake?

Doctored?

Does this clear some things up or further muddy the waters?

Opinions?

Oh, I can't find any link to an actual recording that we can hear on the internet. Anyone got a copy?

Captain Mike

[Westegg]

1. Sounds real to me...

Whether it's been edited, I can't say. I do know she WAS a real person, and that she really did die. (I've read about her previously.) In my opinion, it doesn't do much to clear things up. She talks of stabbings, of something like mace in the first-class section. Etc. Her info was supposedly helpful in identifying hijackers. Basically, I found it tough to listen to because she was very calm and professional and trying to do her job under perversely awful circumstances. Whoever killed her certainly committed a terrible crime.

[RedSock]

3. ID hijackers

"Her info was supposedly helpful in identifying hijackers."

Maybe, but there was nothing on the tape about the hijackers in any identifiable way. Indeed, when the AA rep asks Ong to describe the attackers/stabbers, she does not.

[morningglory]

4. She stated where they were seated. Ties back to tickets. n/t

[KC21304]

2. I will tell you what it means to me.

It means that if Gore's airport security proposals and the Hart- Rudmann warning had been taken seriously by this bunch of misfits, this poor lady would not have had a 23 minute coversation with her airline without something happening to possibly prevent the first or at least the second, third and fourth planes ending up the way they did.

[Abe Linkman]

5. So, even though the pilots didn't activate the hijacking signal...

It wasn't necessary, because Ms. Ong alerted the authorities. If that's right, it means what?

[Zhade]

8. It means that there is no "no signal" excuse for not scrambling planes.

This makes the noose tighter. The bush administration can never claim that "there was no signal, so how would we know to scramble planes?"

Of course, that's a bit of a red herring, as the FAA SOP is to scramble jets after loss of contact for a specified amount of time.

[RH]

9. Planes were scrambled.

See

Pentagon said interceptor jets flew too far, too slow, too late - on 9-11

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=4792

[RedSock]

10. not until Pentagon was hit

Pentagon is full of poop.

No planes scrambled until AFTER the Pentagon was hit, according to Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers, 9/13/01, Senate Confirmation Hearings. (He said this twice that day.)

The "too late" scramble story was put forth by Dan Rather on the evening of 9/14/01, citing unnamed-to-this-day sources. And it is *this* version that has become the official story.

8:13 -- First ATC knowledge of hijacking.
9:37 -- Pentagon hit.

That's 1 hour, 24 minutes --- 84 minutes AT LEAST before any military plane does ANYTHING on 9/11.

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Myers was wrong, and hedged his testimony on 9/13.

BILL NELSON: The second World Trade tower was hit shortly after 9:00. And the Pentagon was hit approximately 40 minutes later. That's approximately. You would know specifically what the timeline was.

The crash that occurred in Pennsylvania after the Newark westbound flight was turned around 180 degrees and started heading back to Washington was approximately an hour after the World Trade Center second explosion. You said earlier in your testimony that we had not scrambled any military aircraft until after the Pentagon was hit. And so, my question would be: why?

MYERS: I think I had that right, that it was not until then. I'd have to go back and review the exact timelines.

BILL NELSON: Perhaps we want to do this in our session, in executive session. But my question is an obvious one for not only this committee, but for the executive branch and the military establishment.

If we knew that there was a general threat on terrorist activity, which we did, and we suddenly have two trade towers in New York being obviously hit by terrorist activity, of commercial airliners taken off course from Boston to Los Angeles, then what happened to the response of the defense establishment once we saw the diversion of the aircraft headed west from Dulles turning around 180 degrees and, likewise, in the aircraft taking off from Newark and, in flight, turning 180 degrees? That's the question.

I leave it to you as to how you would like to answer it. But we would like an answer.

MYERS: You bet. I spoke, after the second tower was hit, I spoke to the commander of NORAD, General Eberhart. And at that point, I think the decision was at that point to start launching aircraft.

One of the things you have to understand, senator, is that in our posture right now, that we have many fewer aircraft on alert than we did during the height of the Cold War. And so, we've got just a few bases around the perimeter of the United States.

So it's not just a question of launching aircraft, it's launching to do what? You have to have a specific threat. We're pretty good if the threat's coming from outside. We're not so good if the threat's coming from inside.

In this case, if my memory serves me -- and I'll have to get back to you for the record -- my memory says that we had launched on the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania. I mean, we had gotten somebody close to it, as I recall. I'll have to check that out.

But General Myers was wrong: military aircraft had scrambled against the 9/11 attack much earlier than he thought.

http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20020603/avi_stor.htm

Military jets are in the air at 8:52 am, 12 minutes after Logan notifies NORAD of Flight 11. Now we're down to 39 minutes before any military plane does ANYTHING on 9/11.

Now 8:13 is not a good marker to say that Logan knew immediately of a hijacking. That's the time of last regular contact. Over the next seven minutes, ATC are heard on the tape discussing a possible hijacking, and the transponder is turned off. Around 8:20 the IFF is turned off, and four minutes later, an ATC hears an unmistakable sign of hijackers on Flight 11.

So 8:24 is the "first knowledge" of Flight 11 being hijacked. Suspicion doesn't equal knowledge. That's 28 minutes from final confirmation before any military plane does ANYTHING on 9/11.

Lt. Col. Timothy (Duff) Duffy, a 102 Fighter Wing (FW) F-15 pilot at Otis ANGB, had already heard about the suspected hijacking, thanks to a phone call from the FAA's Boston Approach Control. He had the call transferred to the unit's command post, grabbed Maj. Daniel (Nasty)Nash, his wingman, and started suiting up. Another officer told Duffy, "This looks like the real thing."

When did Duffy take a phone call from the FAA? Much earlier than when Logan called NORAD. Duffy was on the way to the plane when he got the order to scramble.

I suspect there's not as much to the "delayed scrambled planes" as we've been led to suspect.

On edit: when am I going to learn to hit "preview" to check my markup tags? I don't know.

[RedSock]

12. Myers and 8:13

I find it *very* hard to believe that Myers could not have had any of those facts with him for those hearings if he so chose. To think he was there for Senate confirmation hearings and was acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs on 9/11, and he can't manage to give any straight/complete answers is beyond belief. Major fudging in my opinion.

To the best of my knowledge -- and I know Paul's Timeline pretty good -- there was NO mention of scrambled jets until CBS's report on the evening of 9/14. Does anyone have links to any? If not, for now I'm going with Myers's comments and assume the story floated out the next day was to cover the glaring tracks.

Re 8:13: From "An Interesting Day" (which appears to be not available at the correct link?!?):

"At approximately 8:13, Flight 11 was instructed by air traffic controllers at the FAA's Boston Center, in Nashua, New Hampshire, to climb to 35,000 feet. The plane did not obey the order and its transponder was turned off. Air traffic control manager Glenn Michael said, "we considered it at that time to be a possible hijacking." (AP, 8/12/02, emphasis added) According to FAA regulations, that was the correct decision: "Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when ... there is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ... aircraft." (FAA Air Traffic Control Regulations, Chapter 10, Section 2-5)

AP: http://www.boston.com/news/daily/12/attacks_faa.htm
FAA: http://www1.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html

So if they considered it a hijacking and FAA regulations say it's an emergency and NORAD should be notified if there is an emergency, the clock is running at 8:13....

[RH]

14. Did you bother to read the link?

You are given he time that, EDT, that Tech. Sgt. Jeremy W. Powell took the first call from Boston Center, he of of North American Aerospace Defense Command's (Norad) Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) in Rome, N.Y.

You are given the name of the cammander notified: Col. Robert K. Marr, Jr.

You are told what fighters were sent from the Otis Air National Guard (ANG) Base


You are given the name of the person in charge of the person
in charge in the Air Operations Center.

You are given the name of a 102 Fighter Wing (FW) F-15 pilots sent: Lt. Col. Timothy (Duff) Duffy.
Maj. Daniel (Nasty)Nash.

The take off time is conformed as a quote from Duffy.

etc.

.. etc.

... etc.

.... etc.

...... And against that you have, in terms of primary testimony...?

Willful ignorance.

[medienanalyse]

15. planes were not scrambled

see (it is in English, so dont panic):
http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/hunt.html

[DulceDecorum]

17. Stupid distraction

Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta, summoned by the White House to the bunker, was on an open line to the Federal Aviation Administration operations center, monitoring Flight 77 as it hurtled toward Washington, with radar tracks coming every seven seconds. Reports came that the plane was 50 miles out, 30 miles out, 10 miles out-until word reached the bunker that there had been an explosion at the Pentagon.
Mineta shouted into the phone to Monte Belger at the FAA: "Monte, bring all the planes down." It was an unprecedented order-there were 4,546 airplanes in the air at the time. Belger, the FAA's acting deputy administrator, amended Mineta's directive to take into account the authority vested in airline pilots. "We're bringing them down per pilot discretion," Belger told the secretary.
" pilot discretion," Mineta yelled back. "Get those goddamn planes down."
Sitting at the other end of the table, Cheney snapped his head up, looked squarely at Mineta and nodded in agreement.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42754-2002Jan26

What a difference a crisis makes. Before September 11, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta was strictly a behind-the-scenes player. But as a hijacked plane hurtled toward Washington, Mineta was hustled under guard to a secret bunker. There he manned an open line to the Federal Aviation Administration, relaying the distance countdown, "20 miles, 10 miles, the Pentagon's been hit," to Vice President Dick Cheney, who was seated nearby. Without conferring with Cheney, Mineta immediately gave the order to ground the 4,800 planes in the air and shut down airports nationwide, a decision that likely foiled other terrorist plots, according to reports from both the Bush administration and the FBI.
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m4070/2002_Feb/83045650/p1/article.jhtml

That excerpt was from the Washington Post.
Other sloppy reports include this article from ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/DailyNews/sept11_moments_2.html
and this one from NBC News
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/meetthepress091601.html
and this from the Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F12%2F16%2Fwbush16.xml

Oh, what willful ignorance all of these reporters exhibit!!
Let us send 96 paddle-masters to knock some sense into them.

[medienanalyse]

18. Hope there is no misunderstanding, dulce

You are referring to whom with "Stupid distraction", RH or me?

When I write: No fighters scrambled I am talking about RHs statement concerning Otis-Fighters at 8:52, Duffy and Nasty and all this scrap.

All what you quote just underlines my findings. The scrambling began after the Pentagon was hit, so at least 45 minutes later than the alleged scrambling in Otis.

BTW- the distraction is in issue of the thread. I pointed out that the Ong-tape only had 4 minutes, now it has 25. No answer to that?

[DulceDecorum]

19. No misunderstanding

They did NOTHING until AFTER the Pentagon was hit.
Just sat there and watched the blip on the screen coming in.

Four minutes,
twenty minutes
on a cell phone
with hijackers in the cockpit
mace in the air
and nobody doing ANYTHING.

[Zhade]

13. My apologies. I was sloppy with my wording.

I should have said, "no "no signal" excuse for not scrambling planes in time, because they clearly knew the plane was hijacked."

I wasn't clear. Hope this clears it up.

[Abe Linkman]

16. Please restate it without the use of so many hard-to-follow negatives.

For a million bucks, I still couldn't tell you what you mean.

Are you trying to say something like: "The fact that such and such was (or wasn't) done tells us (says, suggests,)_________"?

[Bolo Boffin]

6. A portion of the tape can be heard...

...in the archives of Jim Lehrer's news hour. The link is in the thread that this subject is a dupe of: 9/11 Commission Hears Flight Attendant's Call.

[medienanalyse]

7. it is all bogus

Let us face some facts:
Karen Martin was allegedly stabbed. Why, where, who told it?

Madeline Amy Sweeney was the one who phone Mr. Woodward to tell him about the 4 (!) hijackers - and she did not even notice this:

"8:21 A.M.) Inside Flight 11, flight attendant Betty Ong calls Vanessa Minter at American Airlines reservations. Nydia Gonzales also listens in from 8:27. She talks for 25 minutes, until the plane crashes. The FBI says that only the first 4 minutes were recorded, but won't release the tape.
Ong is apparently in the middle of the plane, but other flight attendants relay information about what is happening in the front. She says the hijackers had sprayed something in the first-class cabin to keep people out of the front of the plane. It burns her eyes and she is having trouble breathing. "25 minute phone call until crash," http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/DailyNews/primetime_flightattendants_020718.html

And according to this story miraculouly the whole 25 minutes were taped:http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/27/911.commis.call/index.html

and it was mace. I did not know yet they found it in Attas suitcase. But every day we learn more.

We learn:
- Mrs. Sweeney does not mention the gas.
- Mrs. Ongs tape contanis only 4 minutes, and the trouble with breathing has for sure not changed her voice slightly (which is for sure not loud and because of relaying by radio not clear?)
- is she in the middle or in the rear?

Mrs. Sweeney is honored because of relaying informations. The pilots anyway, Ogonowsky for sure. Karen Martin is honored because she was stabbed. Ong is honored too. All family members are happy (okay- in ralation to the situation to have a dead relative), but no one says that there is no evidence and that Ongs voice was not intelligible on those 4 minutes. There are HEROES to mourn about.

[k-robjoe]

20. Ong/Sweeney

Is there also a discrepancy in that the hijackers, according to one account, said over the speakers : "Stay calm. We are going back to the airport", but nothing like this is mentioned in neither Amy Sweeneys nor Betty Ongs call, or is it?

David L Graham writes : "...according to Sweeney´s highly detailed account, all of this (the stabbing of two flight attendants) apparently occurred before the cockpit was breached by the hijackers. In keeping with the reality of a violent (and fatal) airline hijacking, one would have to reasonably conclude, that the stabbed flight attendants, as well as the passengers, would´ve been screaming VERY LOUDLY. In acknowledging this, a serious problem emerges - namely, why didn´t (couldn´t) the pilots alert ground control, given the fact that they must have heard the disturbances, and were still free to communicate. Since the hijackers had not yet gained access to the cockpit."

That sounds very strange. Unless one of the hijackers was allready in the cockpit from takoff (in the jumpers seat).
But neither Sweeney or Ong mentions anyting about, before takeoff, seeing an arab looking guy sitting in the jumpers seat, or do they? And they would have known, wouldn´t they?

[RH]

21. over the speakers?

Over which speakers, according to what account?

"Stay calm. We are going back to the airport" comes from an ATC communication transcript.

I see no reason to suppose that Sweeney or Ong knew anything about it.


From the same transcript:

"If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet."

A pretty good reason not to scream VERY LOUDLY, don't you think?

http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2001/nyt101601c.html

[k-robjoe]

22. ATC

Thanks for clearing up on that.
Story has it that it was meant to come over the speakers, but then they pushed the wrong button or something...(twice, I believe)
I would think that there was some screaming and commotion if two flight attendants had their throat cut.(To keep people quiet, it would be better not to actually cut somebodys throat.(Just threaten to). If they wanted some real noise to alert the pilots, then cutting somebodys throat would seem a good idea. Only if there was a real commotion allready, would it make sense...)

[k-robjoe]

23. caller-system(?)

We are told that just after the hijackers had gained access to the cockpit, "Sweeney tried to contact the cockpit but did not get a response".
She had a caller-system(?) so that she could contact the cockpit? Do all flight attendants?
If so, why weren´t the pilots warned way earlier, when the hijackers pulled up their knifes?

We are told that Betty Ong reported that the hijackers used maze, that blocked the way so they couldn´t go forwards(?) in the plane. Is this something that they could hide in their pockets? What about security check? We are told that quite a few of the 9-11 hijackers were selected for extra security check? But they were all clean? Some luck?

Amy Sweeney didn´t report any maze. Was Betty Ong with a group of people in the rear of the plane, and Amy Sweeney with a group of people in the front? (She reported the breaking into the cockpit.)

[RH]

24. Mace sprays

are sold in small containers already disguised as pens or pagers:

http://www.tbotech.com/pepper-pen.htm
http://www.tbotech.com/pepperpager.htm

Atta's late arrival may have been a part of a deliberate ploy to slip quickly through security checks:

The gate agent who checked in Mohamed Atta and gave him his boarding pass told the FBI that she remembers him showing up for Flight 11 late, his face covered with sweat, the source says.
"The girl that checked Atta said he was sweating bullets, that he was running late," the employee said.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24596

[k-robjoe]

26. earlier

> Atta's late arrival may have been a part of a deliberate ploy to slip quickly through security checks.

Yes, that´s a possible way. Then he was loaded up with all the stuff.
Maybe this was also the case with the other three flights, that one of the hijackers was loaded up, and luckily wasn´t picked for extra security check. And somehow made it through ordinary security check.

> Maze sprays

Also possible. (I was under the impression that this was something a bit more enduring(?) /hovering(?) in the air, than pepperspray, but I´m very far from having studied this.)

> Because of what should it be supposed that the hijackers pulled knifes before entering the cockpit?

We are told : "But even as she was relating detailes about the hijackers, the men were storming the front of the plane and "had just gained access to the pilot.""

It seems clear to me that if she had time to call up American flight services and say "This plane has been hijacked" and relate detailes about the hijackers, she would have had time to warn the pilots, it would in fact be much easier, would be the first thing one would think of, would make a lot more sense.
(Reading the L.A.Times article one also gets very much the impression that the storming of the cockpit happens after the two stabbings.)

http://www.latimes.com/nationworld/nation/la-092001hijack.story

[medienanalyse]

28. conspiracy theories of robjoe

may have been

Yes, that´s a possible way. Then he was loaded up

and luckily wasn´t picked for

Also possible. (I was under the impression

I´m very far from having studied this.)

> Because of what should it be supposed that

We are told :

It seems clear to me that if

she would have had

would be the first thing one would think of, would make a lot more sense.

I am tired of you guys who try to justify and explain the utterly idiotc things instead of asking: where is the material evidence?

[k-robjoe]

29. well

Very well. The conclusion is : It doesn´t make sense that Amy Sweeney would call American flight services and not rather warn the flight 11 pilots of what was happening.

I believe you´ll give me that much credit, that this wasn´t a silly thing to bring to attention.

(The other things discussed, pepperspray etc., didn´t seem very important in comparison.)

[medienanalyse]

30. attention

>>>The conclusion is ...

Your conclusion. My conclusion is: there is no material evidence that she ever phoned. Same with Ong. Besides - nothing of what we are told about what they allgedly reported makes sense. The "if"s and "when"s do not carry us further.

Yes it is okay to bring to attention that one more detail is senseless.

But more efficient is to blame the Bush administration for not releasing the voice recorders, the airport videos, the fingerprints on the boarding documents, the ADR, the original passenger manifests and so on. Immediately - not in two years when everything is falsified like the Ong-tape.

[RH]

31. carry us further?

What carried us nowhere for more than two years were continual assertions to the effect that the "official version" is false but with nothing at all to prove that anything else was the case, alongside a number of easily refuted hairbrained hypotheses.

:nuke:

[medienanalyse]

32. Brainwashington, Cash&Kerry

>>>to the effect that the "official version" is false but with nothing at all to prove that anything else was the case, alongside a number of easily refuted hairbrained hypotheses.<<<

Are you insinuating that it is umpossible to prove that a theory is false without presenting a eight one in the same time?

Do you say that as long as incompetent conspiracy theorists produce their blabber we must stick to the "official version"?

Must I keep my mouth shut in example when the Sweeney/Ong -stories sweep over the world and they are inconsistent - just only because I do not have a clue what really happened?

I do not claim to know what really happened. When I have a guess I tell that it is a hypothesis. But here I did not yet because, and this may be the only point where we agree, there are very rare occasions when a hypothesis is helpfull. But I do not rule them out. And for sure I do not rule out to offend with all power the bushist lies as long as we can prove that they are lies. I do not live in Brainwashington.

[RH]

36. I am saying

that without a clue you prove nothing.

[medienanalyse]

39. without a clue

RH,

if x+y makes 4 we do not know what x and y are.
But if we know (by another account) that x and y are full positive numbers between 1 and 3 (so i.e. not -8)we can positively state that x or y are 1.2 or 3. We do not have a clue but we can prove it can not be 13, 27 or 911.

It is simple logic. RH - do you prefer to BELIEVE in the bushist theories? If an interceptor scrambles with full afterburner heading towards Manhattan you can COUNT when it arrives and you can PROVE that the statement of the NORAD is wrong. We can COUNT the evidence which is existing (i.e. voicerecorders+ADRs), we can prove that the Bushists are wrong. Without being able to say exactly what happened - because they have the Xs and Ys in their hand and do not release anything. I must not believe Bush when he says x is 27.

[RH]

41. My preference

is to apply well tried principles of jurisprudence.

The scrambling of two F16s at 8:52 is therefore a fact
to be confirmed by the pilots of the planes, their superior officers and others who saw them on radar, not least the Civilian Air Traffic Controllers they cummunicated with during the mission.

Without the witnesses themeslves to cross examine, casual inerpretations of hearsay are, to say the least, a dangerously unsatisfactory indulgence.

The full afterburner fantasy has been discussed before:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=4792

[medienanalyse]

42. it has been discussed much earlier too ...

but let us bring it to the point.
You RH already said this before
>>>The scrambling of two F16s at 8:52 is therefore a fact
to be confirmed by the pilots of the planes
(you mean the F-15 interceptors on Otis, I agree if you admit that a F-16 is not a F-15 and that you talk about these interceptors and not "the planes" which could mean whatever)

I did not negotiate it with you because it is too many lies on the table, I can not answer all Bushist lies.

Prove that statement and be aware that I have read the Duffy/Nasty stories carefully. I do not decline that these guys are pilots and that they scrambled. It is the time. PROVE that they (THEY or at least ONE OF THEM)acknowledged to have scrambled at 8:52.

I expect one or two sentences and the link. That means: I do not expect the link to aviation week or wherever and a general statement: "find it out yourself!". No. The exact statement of Duffy/Nasty about 8:52. I think it is a fair anbd easy task.

[RH]

44. The version in question is widely published

PT's timeline quotes several sources:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/flight175.html

The pertinent legal maxim is therefore as simple as it is clear: silence denotes consent.

One is thus perfectly well entitled to suppose that the witnesses in question, including the local school headmaster who saw the fighters take off, are well enough aware of the publication of the said version and, not having contradicted it, they implicitly consent to the veracity of it.

Why then would the simple sense of that be so hard to grasp? By the same token, no doubt, you would and should accuse the witnesses of complicity by staying so silent if they dully know the published version to be false.

It therefore falls to none but yourself to prove whatever case you prefer to believe to the contrary, and not least because of the malicious implication of your opinion.

[medienanalyse]

46. poor, very poor

widely published?

Only that Otis has F-15 for air-policing.
And that there are some pilots who claim that they scrambled on 9/11.

But your statement was: they scrambled at 8:52 and they said so.

Prove that. Or say that you can not. the compilation of TH does not help - he just puts together even the most contradictory things - which makes his timeline so worthy.

[RH]

48. Widely published:

Times between 8:44 a.m and 8:52 a.m. for the scramble order or the take off were quoted by Norad, CNN, the Washington Post, the LA Times and the The Cape Cod Times.

"they scrambled at 8:52 and they said so" was not at all what what I said.

I wrote that it is "a fact to be confirmed by the pilots of the planes, their superior officers and others who saw them on radar, not least the Civilian Air Traffic Controllers they cummunicated with during the mission."

If for whatever reason you believe that the pilots or anybody else in a position to know will testify to another effect, please go ahead, by all means invite them to do so.

In the mean time I see no need to dally with your deliberately ignorant nonsense.

[RH]

37. It seems clear to me,

(from what we hear on the Betty Ong tape recording) that at the time in question
"the cockpit's not answering".

And if the pilot was at first distracted by a disturbance in First Class, would that perhaps be a reason not to have answered to begin with?

[RH]

25. "way earlier"?

Because of what should it be supposed that the hijackers pulled knifes before entering the cockpit?

[k-robjoe]

27. wrong URL

Gave a wrong URL in my last post. Sorry. It should be :
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092001hijack.story

[Robb]

33. Seems important to have a link here

I found these two links to the audio:

Flight 11 Audio, Part 1 (MP3 file, 3.6 megs)

Flight 11 Audio, Part 2 (MP3 file, 3.7 megs)

[medienanalyse]

34. Great thank you

The heap of evidence is growing.
Unable to tell the name of the purser.
No voices except hers.
No sense in all, i.e.:
tried to open the cockpit door- what for? After her colleague got stabbed? To get stabbed too?
No mentioning of Sweeney.
What about the gun?

And so on and so on.

It is a real problem when CIA hires B-movie-makers from Hollywood and not the first rangs. Maybe there is a decrease in quality there too.

[Robb]

35. You need to decide

...whether you think the tape is authentic, and contradicts other evidence, or a fake. I don't think you can effectively argue both.

[medienanalyse]

38. why? Plus a correction

When I find evidence - at least overwhelming hints - of a fake of this tape, why cant the fake be contradictory in itself and to other evidence? In the wake of 9/11 we have had so many bad fakes that I am not astonished at all about one poorly arranged fake more.

correction: I notice now that the tape only includes less than 4 minutes. So my assumption that they produced a tape containing the whole alledged conversation was wrong (but based on the data we received from the public hearing in the 9/11 commission.

On the other hand it is funny because of the snip which was "tapred".
It was the "end of the flight". Lots of things have happened before: stabbing, mace, hijacking, try to open the cockpitdoor. Plus the long time of phoning before, same as Sweeney (about 20 minutes).
Why is she relyaing the "main" information "now" since the tape is running? Did she wait for the tape and repeats it but this still without mentioning the names of her colleagus and discussing who is "#one, #three" - funny enough? But if: did she not notice the rapid descent of the plane - 30.000 feet in 7 minutes?

[Abe Linkman]

40. Nice rant

"You put your belief against the belief of others. Who will win? You? Because your belief is stronger?

PROVE your statements."

[medienanalyse]

43. yes linkman

I shall prove something? I hope you read what I already wrote here. What shall I prove?
- That we do not hear anybody else of the passengers?
- That Ong mentiones MAce, Sweeney not?
- That Ong does not mention thge descent?
- That there was a rapid descent? and so on - what shall I prove? Exactly please. Dont tell me I shall prove the conclusion that I draw of the facts that I proved.

(When I told you to prove your "I believe" I had not even an inkling where you drew your belief out. In comparison I provided here more than 10 facts which support my conclusion)

[RH]

45. Prove for instance

your apparent presumption as to when the moot part of the call took place.

And why, BTW, would Ong mention Sweeney? Should she have named every individual on the plane? You are not making sense.

[medienanalyse]

47. yes, as you like

>>>your apparent presumption as to when the moot part of the call took place.

What you mean is: when -according to my presumption - the alleged phone call allegedly took place.

We have about 4 minutes which must be positioned between 8:13 and 8:45, I hope I must not detail that.
1 Sweeneys phone call took -allegedly- place untill the end ("oh my god, oh my god")
2. All hijackers were allegedly in the cockpit which was shut.
3. A lot of events allegedly took place after 8:13: stabbing, mace, entering - which are in the past in Ongs review
4. She spoke allegedly about 25 minutes with her colleagues. they did not transmit what was spoken before the taping began, but 8:45 minus 25 minutes is about 8:20, which makes sense (events are finished)
5. The second Ongtape is a three-person telephonecall in which Ong suddenly is not available anymore. This suggests it is the impact- time, because there is no mentioning of a divided 25-minutes call.
6. There is no mentioning not from Sweeney nor from Ong that i.e. a hijacker came out of the cockpit to stop the call - it would not make any sense anyway.
7. The links about the 25 minutes and the 4 minutes I posted above.

Any questions?

>>>And why, BTW, would Ong mention Sweeney?
She mentioned the stabbed colleague and the dead passengers. In 25 minutes (both made long phone calls -allegedly) you should take notice of the colleagues who can be seen (mot the pilots, the cockpit was shut). And since the cockpit was closed she had a perfect chance to see and count and take notice who was where and who was alive and well. She, Sweeney, was a collegue, not stabbed and phoned on another line some meters away. It would even be normal to communicate "whom do you call? I call /911/the tower/the airline/my mother/NORAD/FAA/ground staff/ or whatever.

In 25 minutes one word for the collegue - I guess that would be normal and a 95% chance. But I admit: not 100%, so no proof, only statistics.

>>>Should she have named every individual on the plane?
No. But funny enough: why are there no other phone calls from them. And no cries, notes, nothing? Imagine: the purser is stabbed and two passengers too, and both flight attendants make phone calls without being interrupted, even in the time of the rapid descent? "Oh my god" only by one person?

>>>You are not making sense.
Yes? Shall I explain the scenery as it is layed out by the fake-makers in all their incredible dumbness?

[RH]

49. Why should Ong mention Sweeney?

I still see no reason.

Taking notice of the colleagues is beside the point.

Why should it be a priority to mention Sweeney?

Because of what should that be more important than anything actually said?