Ed Moving On is coming.

[Dog Town]

If a heat seeking missile ripped off only one engine from the pylon then the rest of the plane remains intact for the impact you describe.

With no evidence of a missle to be found?

 

[T.A.M.]

Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to imply that the recording was faked or manipulated whatsoever.

Part of my job as the "computer guy" for a law firm is to digitize deposition testimony in preparation for trial. During that process I often encounter instances where a deposition transcript doesn't accurately capture what's going on in the audio or video. Transcription errors aside, even the best court reporter has a problem capturing grunts, groans and other non-verbal information.

Well that is convenient, as now I can ask an expert this question.

If such evidence was admitted in a trial against a defendant, would the defense firm have experts analyze the recording for validity, to make sure it hadnt been doctored?

TAM

 

[Moving On]

TAM,

I am a bit out of my specialty here on Flight 93.

I believe it was shot down though.

Donald Rumsfeld in an address to the troops on Christmas Eve, “made a passing reference to United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to stop al Qaeda hijackers. But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to ‘the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania’."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93
How similar is a plane being shot down and passenger heroes taking control of an aircraft and saving America from a fourth terrorist attack? How would the terrorists have "shot down" the plane - did they have fighter jets too? Those are two completely different concepts with no similarity at all. If you were certain of the Flight 93 story how could you even think of the notion it had been shot down?

Russell

 

[WildCat]

There are reports of a larger debris field.

But lets say not.

If a heat seeking missile ripped off only one engine from the pylon then the rest of the plane remains intact for the impact you describe.

That is similar to the scene.

One engine some distance forward of the plane in the woods and one in the impact crater.

If that had happened there would have been a large puff of smoke in the sky from the missile exploding, and the flaming wreck of the plane would have fallen tens of thousands of feet, trailing smoke the whole way. The day was quite clear, there would have been witnesses to that. Also, the plane would have hit the ground at terminal velocity - <200mph and would have resulted in large chunks of debris due to the reduced kinetic energy at impact. That all the wreckage was found within a few hundred yards of the crater (save maybe some light personal effects - papers and such - that can be blown further away) and the pieces were very small support the high-speed, powered impact of the "official story".

 

[Pardalis]

With no evidence of a missle to be found?

That would mean that there was a cover-up on the crash site, meaning more people needed to be involved...

 

[Moving On]

With no evidence of a missle to be found?

We would not be able to even remotely prove or disprove the absence or presence of a missile at the scene.

That could go on for hours and end right where we are here.

I am going with Rumsfeld on this one.

 

[T.A.M.]

If it was so complex the US government couldn't pull it off then how did only 19 people accomplish it.

I am not up to date on the various prosecutions. Has there been a successful prosecution of a support network yet?

Scenario as given:

19 Hijackers, trained by a terrorist organization planned and carried out an attack involving hijacking planes and flying them into buildings.

Requirements: Will to sacrifice life for the act. Able to get through airport security. Some degree of flying ability. Apathy from passengers. Lack of military response.


Scenario for inside job:

Landing 4 flights at an alternate location, after their initial take off. Disposing of the passengers. Sending up 4 flights to replace them, remote controlled, and then ramming them into said targets. Faking the entire hijacker story, or hiring them for something similar, so that the paper trail would add up. Faking an OBL recording, or if he is a CIA operative, have him initially deny, then for some reason admit to the attacks.

+/- all the skill and complexity of rigging the WTCs with explosives (if you believe this part of the CT mantra)...

I could go on, but you get my point.

TAM

 

[Dog Town]

Missile?That would have left atleast a good size piece of a wing. No?

 

[Pardalis]

How similar is a plane being shot down and passenger heroes taking control of an aircraft and saving America from a fourth terrorist attack? How would the terrorists have "shot down" the plane - did they have fighter jets too? Those are two completely different concepts with no similarity at all. If you were certain of the Flight 93 story how could you even think of the notion it had been shot down?

Read carefully:

The people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania.

That would imply that Al Qaeda shot down the plane.

It's just a simple slip of the tongue Russell. He probably meant "brought down".

 

[Dog Town]

Russ have you looked at the Lockerbie photos?

 

[T.A.M.]

TAM,

I am a bit out of my specialty here on Flight 93.

I believe it was shot down though.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93
How similar is a plane being shot down and passenger heroes taking control of an aircraft and saving America from a fourth terrorist attack? How would the terrorists have "shot down" the plane - did they have fighter jets too? Those are two completely different concepts with no similarity at all. If you were certain of the Flight 93 story how could you even think of the notion it had been shot down?

Russell

It was a passing comment, likely made as he was going somewhere, being hounded by the press. My god if we took every BUSh misspeak as the real truth, than we would be in more trouble than this. I think rather than a Freudian slip, it was a mispeak.

TAM

 

[WildCat]

If it was so complex the US government couldn't pull it off then how did only 19 people accomplish it.

Because this is a far simpler scenario than were the government to have been involved. It takes dozens of people to get a fighter jet armed and airborn, for instance. Not to mention how many it would take to prepare 3 extremely large occupied office buildings w/ explosives...

I am not up to date on the various prosecutions. Has there been a successful prosecution of a support network yet?

The beauty of that operation was its simplicity - it didn't require a large support network. All you needed was to get 4 hijackers flight training and some muscle on board for support (who may or may not have known they were on a suicide mission) armed with what was then allowable weapons to take on board an aircraft. The whole thing could be done w/ only a few hundred thousand dollars, chump change to a well-financed network like al Qaeda.

 

[Pardalis]

Russell, look at it this way:

The people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania

theory one:

If Al Quaeda attacked the USA in New York, then Al Qaeda shot down the plane in Pennsylvania. WRONG

theory two:

If US army planes shot down the plane in Pennsylvania, then the US army attacked the USA in New York. WRONG

Therefore, it's most likely that Rummy made a mistake.

 

[Moving On]

The CNN spokesperson didn't handle it that way.

 

[T.A.M.]

I dont want to quote the entire article, But the CNN reporter indicates that people are speculating what was meant by the statement based on a report from worldnetdaily.com. He is not commenting on what he things, but rather, to spice up some contraversy, to get people to read the article, he is saying,

"Hey, look at what some people on the net think this means." simple.

The Reporter makes no comment on what he personally thinks.

A Pentagon spokesman insisted that Rumsfeld simply misspoke, but Internet conspiracy theorists seized on the reference to the plane having been shot down.

"Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy" asked a posting on the Web site WorldNetDaily.com.

Some people remain skeptical of U.S. government statements that, despite a presidential authorization, no planes were shot down September 11, and rumors still circulate that a U.S. military plane shot the airliner down over Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

A Pentagon spokesman insists Rumsfeld has not changed his opinion that the plane crashed as the result of an onboard struggle between passengers and terrorists.

bolding mine


TAM

 

[Pardalis]

The CNN spokesperson didn't handle it that way.

The important is how *you* handle it.

 

[WildCat]

The CNN spokesperson didn't handle it that way.

See how easy it is to misspeak? You meant "CNN reporter", right? And you were typing, not speaking off-the-cuff.

 

[Nevermore]

I downloaded exhibit P200055 from the Moussaoui trial exhibit website:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html

It is a very slick Flash animation that shows seating charts for each flight, timelines and even a couple of audio snippets from the cockpit voice recorders.

One thing I found interesting pertaining to an earlier post about Flight 77 and the Barbara Olsen call ... if I'm reading this correctly the exhibit lists one call which happened at 9:18:58 to the Department of Justice lasting 0 seconds.

 

[T.A.M.]

Nevermore;

please read my post to you...second post from top of this page...thanks

TAM

 

[Dog Town]

Dropped call IIRC there were several.