United 93 CVR transcript

[KJF]

Here's what you've been waiting for all these years - the transcript from United 93's cockpit voice recorder. I heard something about them displaying data (i.e. altitude, apparently it descended very rapidly at the start - told you it did) from the other black box in court as well. Unfortunately, we've not going to get the actual recording, which, according to what I heard on CNN just now contains sounds (like thumping and crashing) that give more meaning to what the people are saying.

Link:
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/04/12/flight93.transcript.pdf

I've just skimmed through it and one thing stuck out:
"10:00:37: Up, down. Saeed, up, down."
It appears that there were at least two hijackers in the cockpit. Saeed would be Saeed Al Ghamdi, who had no flight training. It could also be a misspelling of Ziad (as in Ziad Jarrah, the alleged hijacker pilot).

[file83]

1. Cool - thanks for posting! I'm going to listen now...

brb

[KJF]

2. Watch the video now

It's the top story on CNN, you can find it here:
http://www.cnn.com/
Click on the "video" link. It played for me, no "missing token access denied" message. Kelli Arena gives a lot more than you get from just the transcript.

Also, the video contains never-seen-before pictures of United 93 wreckage, including the 9 foot by 8 foot section and a bit painted with United colours.

[file83]

8. I "captured" that CNN video so we can have a digital record of

what this reporter said. Who knows how long CNN will make it available to the public before they trash it.

http://www.file83.com/yeo/cnn_ua93.wmv

Download it and save a copy.:thumbsup:

[file83]

3. It sounds like to me that the hijackers intentionally crashed the plane.

It doesn't sound like passengers got into the cockpit at all. I mean, all that "allah is great" being repeated at the end sounds to me like they were getting ready to die.

They probably put the plane into a nose dive to make the passengers weightless as the plane rapidly descended.

But what does this mean, at 10:00:25:
"In the cockpit. If we don't, we'll die."

That is spoken in English. What does that mean? Who said that? It would have to be one of the hijackers, but why? That isn't supposed to be the passengers trying to say something like "We need to get...in the cockpit. If we don't, we'll die", IS IT?

Also, there are sure a LOT of "unintelligable" spots in there as well. I wish we could hear it for ourselves.

[KJF]

5. I wish we could hear it too

It must be one of the passengers saying that.

What we really need is the data from the other black box - the flight data recorder - if it was at ground level at the time the CVR ended, then it's a done deal, if it isn't... well, it's a done deal too, but the other way around.

My main problem with the official account is that they are obviously spinning Cheney's presence in the PEOC, the air defense response and the crash time.

Setting aside the roving engine, the debris falling from the sky (not being blown on the wind) in Indian Lake and the debris eight miles away in New Baltimore, I also have a problem believing it crashed at 10:03 and there was then a small earth termor consistent with a plan crashing in more-or-less the same place three minutes later. What are the Vegas odds on that?

[petgoat]

13. Why couldn't hijackers be praying "Allah is great" if they've

been removed from the pilots' seats and are under guard. Or maybe they're bleeding to death
on the floor. I see no reason to assume "Allah is great" means they're putting the plane into
a dive.

[file83]

17. Watch this segment of the CNN "description", you'll learn that the

plane is ALREADY in a dive before the supposed "breach".

http://www.file83.com/yeo/confusion_UA93.wmv

Ask yourself this: If the hijackers are so incompetent as this reporter describes ("confused" "confusion") then are we to assume that the hijackers INTENTIONALLY put the plane into a dive or are the hijackers UNABLE to control the plane?

Notice too, that the plane is ALREADY in a dive when the "autopilot" is turned off. Then there is speculation as to whether or not get the pilots of the plane back into the cockpit.

Are we to believe that these guys that were so incompetent couldn't even fly the damned plane? Then how are we to believe that the other hijackers in the other planes were even capable of hitting a building at high speed?

Makes you wonder how believable it is that the other hijackers in the other planes were really flying the planes and that they weren't being remotely piloted. Just a thought.

[dailykoff]

4. Yippee, another movie tie-in.

Next-up: free hijacker action figure with every Happy Meal!

AND DON'T FORGET, TERRA IS REAL!

[dchill]

25. "TERRA IS REAL!"

Yeah, but so is Mars...

:)

[KJF]

6. You can find the new pictures here:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/12/moussaoui.trial.ap/index.html
About halfway down on the right you can click on "Gallery: crash site of flight 93", you get five new pics that are government exhibits.

Do these work?

[file83]

7. Those photos look like they are from a movie set. Are we supposed to

believe that the black box was found ABOVE ground? I thought that most of the plane was UNDERGROUND - like 15 ft underground - so how could the blackbox be above ground, out of the crater (which was in a field), and in a forest?

This doesn't jibe with what we already know, does it?

[greyl]

9. Where'd you get the idea the black box was found above ground?

I think you may be creating a strawmen argument to confirm your bias.

[file83]

10. From the CNN photos in the thread immediately above mine...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=81680&mesg_id=81693

This photo is titled "recorder":

[greyl]

11. We can't assume that that's a photo

of the undisturbed scene.
It doesn't look how I'd expect an undisturbed scene to look. You neither, right?

edit: In other words, I think it's likely that the photo was taken as soon as they unearthed the box.
Check the news reports for how long it took to find the recorder.

[file83]

14. Look at it's placement - all crooked on other debris - if they went

through the trouble of cleaning off the box, why would they prop it up there and not take a photo of it where they cleaned it off at? So what you are saying is that they pulled it out of the ground, cleaned it off, then placed it back on some debris so that the "recorder" portion is visible and snapped the photo?

Why not just take a photo of it in an area where they are cataloging the evidence? Why place it BACK into the debris?

[greyl]

18. Do you expect that it would have been caked with mud?

"why would they prop it up there and not take a photo of it where they cleaned it off at?"

We can't infer that it was propped up, nor that it needed to be cleaned off, nor that they moved it to clean it off, nor that they put it back were they found it. You're creating strawman arguments.
All we have is the picture. I'm afraid that if you're attached to the hypothesis that the pictures are fake, there's nothing that can be shown to you that will convince you otherwise because of confirmation bias.

Is there?

[file83]

22. You yourself in an earlier post:

"I think it's likely that the photo was taken as soon as they unearthed the box."

But now you are saying:
"We can't infer that it was propped up, nor that it needed to be cleaned off, nor that they moved it to clean it off, nor that they put it back were they found it."

You are contradicting your own assumption and the fact I was asking you a question.

What I initially asked was if we were supposed to believe that the box was photographed EXACTLY as they found it or whether they pulled it out of the ground (as you first suggested) and then placed it so they could photograph it.

I've never said I thought the pictures are fake. NEVER. Talk about a "strawman" argument. You are projecting. All I'm exploring is the nature of the photograph.

I was asking you a question (because you initially stated that it was likely that they "unearthed" the box) if you thought that they unearthed it and then placed it down - now you accuse me of creating a "strawman" argument? I don't think you even know what that means.

[greyl]

24. Unearthed doesn't equal caked with mud.

It means "dug up". I don't see where I contradicted myself.


"What I initially asked was if we were supposed to believe..."

There's no accompanying commentary that suggests what we are supposed to believe regarding the unknown details you're arguing about.

As I recall, your first statement was "those photos look they're from a movie set".
I think it was safe to assume you weren't talking about a documentary.

[KJF]

16. Good point

"FBI spokesman Bill Crowley said the flight data recorder was found about 4:50 p.m. in the main crater at the crash site, located near Shanksville."
http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp

Apparently, the flight data recorder was found first:
"Bill Crowley of the FBI's Pittsburgh branch said that a box which records flight data was recovered from the crater left by Tuesday's terrorist hijacking and fatal crash in Somerset County, Pa."
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/959093/detail.html

FDR recovered on September 13:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/penn.attack/

The CVR was reportedly 25 feet below ground level:
"The voice recorder, which was found about 25 feet below ground in a crater left by the plane, was sent to a National Transportation Safety Board laboratory in Washington."
http://www.flight93crash.com/OtherAircraft.htm

Make of this what you will.

Here's another photo of one of the black boxes:

[Woody Box]

12. Where was Jeremy Glick?

Now it's official that the passengers had gathered in front of the cockpit doors at the same moment when the South Tower fell down.

So why is Jeremy Glick praised as a hero when he is not with the other uprising passengers trying to get the plane under control, but speaking with his wife on the airfone who tells him about the South Tower collapse?

And he doesn't seem to have noticed the uprising at all - ... :dilemma:

[seatnineb]

19. Spot on Woody!

Lyz Glick is probably regretting saying the following :

You know and I am hesitating for a minute.....but I am still thinking clearly....is that good information to give him(to Jeremy)...or do you not want to know about that...........but then I decided you know what...he needs to know...he is calm...he is going to be O.K.

And I said yes honey...they are crashing planes into the trade center ....and he asked me "do you think my plane is going to go there too?" ....and you know it's so surreal...I think I almost laughed a little bit ...."well nope...it's not going there...because there is nothing ...um really left of it".

Lyz Glick

The Flight That Fought Back DVD(2005)

[DoYouEverWonder]

26. What time did Glick talk to her husband?

Because the first tower didn't collapse until 10:05 AM and the second tower didn't collapse until 10:28 AM, almost 20 minutes after Flight 93 crashed.

Why would she tell her husband that there was nothing left of the WTC, when depending on the time of the call, the towers were probably still standing?

[Woody Box]

28. She saw the first tower collapse on TV

and related it immediately to her husband. Jeremy was asking if they intended to steer UA 93 into the WTC too (remember - the other tower was still standing). He mentioned no turmoil, no revolt, no screams, no letsroll. And even afterwards, he was on the phone for some minutes talking with his father-in-law. Sources: Jere Longman, "Among the heroes", Lisa Beamer: "Let's roll!"

One minor correction: The South Tower came down at 9:59:04. But this is still incompatible with the Glick call.

[KJF]

15. Here's Khalid Sheikh Mohamed's statement for the trial:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/06_04_06_testimony.pdf

"He suggested at the time that they send mujadhidin to study in the flight institutes and use large planes, such as a Boeing 747-400 or larger, not small planes. Sheikh Mohammed did not like to depend on the military training that was given in Afghanistan because he considered it impractical."

Briefly:
The Sears tower was on the shortlist.
Nawaf Al Hazmi was paired with Hanjour.
Given that Hani already had a visa when he met KSM, why did he get instruction on how to apply for a visa?
KSM through Hani would be the best pilot, so he sent him to the Pentagon.
Only 10 of the 13 muscle hijackers attended the hijacker training camp at the start of 2001. What (and who) were the other three and what were they doing then?
Al Hawsawi is a key player in the operation, but according to the 9/11 CR he only helped a couple of hijackers transit Dubai.
KSM "stated that Mustafa al-Hawsawi was his point of contact in the UAE while Sheikh Mohammed was planning the 9/11 attacks," but according to the 9/11 CR, Al-Hawsawi arrived in the UAE in late spring 2001 and was then unfamiliar with its banking procedures.
He says Al Hawsawi is in Dubai doing the coordinating the whole time. Well, I guess we can rip that page out of the 9/11 CR.
The Al Shehri brothers were well-travelled?!!!
Read the statement at the end.

[Thorandmjolnir]

20. What language are they speaking

The report from CNN obviously made a transcript as the tape was being played. If, so, she was listening to the actual voices and not a translation. So, I have some questions that someone might help answer:


1. Was the hijackers speaking english to each other?

2. What device record both the communication between the plane and ground control as well as internal communication on a plane (passengers talking, crew talking etc.)


3. Did the prosecution establish a chain of possession before this was introduced into evidence?


Sounds really strange. Earlier, someone said that the transcript was a translation, but that cannot be, if the CNN reporter could make notes of the conversation as the tape was being played.

[KJF]

21. In the transcript

The stuff in bold is translated from Arabic, the other stuff is English. The transcript is not from CNN, but from the prosecution. Listening to Arena, some of the unintelligible stuff seems actually to have been intelligible.

AFAIK the cockpit voice recorder records all voices heard in the cockpit - pilots, ATC, anybody else there.

I really, really doubt any chain of possession was estblished, but it sounds like it should be the same as the recording played to the victims' families after 9/11, on April 18, 2002:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0204/18/lt.20.html

[file83]

23. You are right, does the reporter understand "Arabic"?

Because she repeats at the beginning of the tape that she "heard" and that "you hear". So she is talking about a recording being played back and she said she was taking notes as best she could - so she wasn't reading from the transcript.

She states she could "hear" the men saying "Give it to me" - but those words, according to the transcript, are spoken in Arabic.

Was this reporter just "dramatizing" the transcript - did she not actually "hear" it?

What's going on here?

[Zaphod 36]

27. Hijackers were speaking English

Deena Burnett, who lost her husband, Tom, 38, a business executive, in the flight, said the voices of the hijackers were not calm, and that it was easy to distinguish when the Arab hijackers and the Americans were speaking.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/04/19/rec.flight.93.families/

Why should Deena Burnett mention that it was easy to distinguish when the hijackers were speaking arab?
It makes only sense to mention this when the hijackers were speaking English! I guess they were speaking English with heavy arab accent.