Testimonies at Moussaoui trial

by **HMKGrey** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:17 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Even then, there's only one call from what may be a regular person (non-flight attendant/Babs Olsen/govt contractors) on the other three flights combined. And the Ong call raises more questions that it answers.<hr></blockquote> Betty Ong gave us the peculiar "I see buildings. I see water," quote as her flight flew over downtown Manhattan. Some have speculated that it's a redundant quote given that she was a very experienced flight attendant and would have known damn well what city she was over... Any thoughts on that, anyone?

by **NewKid** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:20 pm

I think that may have been Sweeney, but I'd have to check. Ong's call is all very strange. She says they're on flight 12. If you do some internet searches, you should be able to pull up some extensive commentary on the call.

by **thoughtographer** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:43 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Ong's call is all very strange. She says they're on flight 12. If you do some internet searches, you should be able to pull up some extensive commentary on the call.<hr></blockquote> Haven't you ever given someone the wrong phone number while your were distracted or under stress? Or even dialed a wrong number? Some poor woman accidentally dialed my number yesterday, when she meant to call the hospital to which her husband was just carted off. I corrected her mistake (wrong area code), and she quickly got off the phone. She sounded older, which would make here an "experienced phone dialer", but I suppose her situation caused her to make a simple mistake. Stress has a tendency to cause mistakes that one would normally not make. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=thoughtographer>thoughtographer</A> at: 4/13/06 11:45 am

by **NewKid** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:48 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Haven't you ever given someone the wrong phone number while your were distracted or under stress? Or even dialed a wrong number? Some poor woman accidentally dialed my number yesterday, when she meant to call the hospital to which her husband was just carted off. I corrected her mistake, and she quickly got off the phone. Stress has a tendency to cause mistakes that one would normally not make. <hr></blockquote> No actually I haven't. But I've been in a lethal force encounter before and experienced massive adrenaline dump and tunnell vision, etc., yet I even remembered my lawyer's phone number right after the incident. Have you even listened to the call? She isn't stressed at all. She's very calm. And it's not misdialling a number with her finger on a keypad, it's saying a flight number that doesn't exist. I'm not saying it means anything necessarily, but you know, I think it's worth noting.

by **thoughtographer** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:06 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>No actually I haven't. But I've been in a lethal force encounter before and experienced massive adrenaline dump and tunnell vision, etc., yet I even remembered my lawyer's phone number right after the incident.<hr></blockquote> So, you were mugged? I'm glad you remembered your lawyer's number under extreme duress, but people still make mistakes. Your experience does not serve as a template for the entire world. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Have you even listened to the call? She isn't stressed at all. She's very calm. And it's not misdialling a number with her finger on a keypad, it's saying a flight number that doesn't exist. I'm not saying it means anything necessarily, but you know, I think it's worth noting.<hr></blockquote> Yeah, I have listened to the call. So what if Ong was calm? It seems to me that you are saying that it means something, but I'm not sure what it is. By the way: the lady that called me had entered the wrong area code for a neighboring county, which is a familiar three digit number, so I knew exactly what happened when she told me where she was trying to call. She seemed totally calm, outwardly, and even managed to thank me before hanging up. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **NewKid** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:17 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>So, you were mugged? I'm glad you remembered your lawyer's number under extreme duress, but people still make mistakes. Your experience does not serve as a template for the entire world.<hr></blockquote> Actually, no it wasn't really a mugging. And yes, I realize my experience isn't representative anymore than your wrong number lady is. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Yeah, I have listened to the call. So what if Ong was calm? It seems to me that you are saying that it means something, but I'm not sure what it is. By the way: the lady that called me had entered the wrong area code for a neighboring county, which is a familiar three digit number, so I knew exactly what happened when she told me where she was trying to call. She seemed totally calm, outwardly, and even managed to thank me before hanging up.<hr></blockquote> My point was simply that people make dialing mistakes frequently because the phone keypad has numbers close together or they may think they're calling someone else and are dialing a real, but wrong number. You can dismiss the remark as nothing, fair enough. But just because it doesn't immediately prove some other theory doesn't mean it should be ignored. There's also some other weird shit she says and doesn't say on the call. But I agree, I don't think it's going to solve the case.

by **thoughtographer** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:32 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Actually, no it wasn't really a mugging. And yes, I realize my experience isn't representative anymore than your wrong number lady is.<hr></blockquote> Not quite. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>My point was simply that people make dialing mistakes frequently because the phone keypad has numbers close together or they may think they're calling someone else and are dialing a real, but wrong number.<hr></blockquote> Yes, but that's not the case in my example. The person dialed the wrong number as the result of an error in recall, and perhaps through force of habit. You don't dial a completely different three number sequence than the one you intended through a slip of the finger. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>You can dismiss the remark as nothing, fair enough. But just because it doesn't immediately prove some other theory doesn't mean it should be ignored. There's also some other weird shit she says and doesn't say on the call. But I agree, I don't think it's going to solve the case.<hr></blockquote> Thanks, I will, and it's more than fair. Please point out the "weird shit" to which you're referring, or don't bring it up. And please don't bring up what she doesn't say, as it could easily be argued that she didn't say "it's a bright and beautiful morning out there" for the same reasons. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **nomo** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:41 pm

Well, that's it folks. The myth has become "real" says the Washington Post. Move along, nothing to see here. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/12/AR2006041200538_pf.html">www.washingtonpost.com/wp...38_pf.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>At Trial, Flight 93 Myth Finally Becomes Reality By Jerry Markon and Timothy Dwyer Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, April 13, 2006; A01 It began with a muted series of thumps from a sharp knife or maybe clenched fists. The sounds were muffled but unmistakable, one body blow after another, ending with a squishy thud. "No, no, no, no, no. No," came the high-pitched voice of a crew member or flight attendant being subdued. " . . . Please, please don't hurt me," the person said later. " . . . I don't want to die." The desperate plea, captured by the cockpit voice recorder of United Airlines Flight 93 on Sept. 11, 2001, was played to a transfixed jury yesterday at the death penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. A foreign-accented voice, increasingly agitated, screamed: "Down. Down. Down!" as the whacking sound continued. Then there was silence. "That's it. Go back," a hijacker said calmly. "Everything is fine. I finished." And with that, Flight 93 from Newark banked left toward Washington. But the terrorists would not strike their target that day because they were beaten -- as the voice recorder made clear -- by the passengers, who fought back. The 32-minute tape recounts an epic struggle as passengers surged forward to retake the plane using whatever low-tech weapons they could find. "Let's get them!" one passenger yelled as dishes crashed to the floor. "In the cockpit. If we don't we'll die," screamed another amid more thumping and crashing and breaking of glass. Yesterday, the myth of Flight 93 became real. The 33 passengers and seven crew members have been lionized in book and film for their struggle to retake the doomed jet, one of four planes hijacked during the deadliest terrorist strike in U.S. history. Until now, the recording that documented their courage had been played only for federal investigators and a limited number of relatives of those aboard. But in court, Americans were taken inside a hijacking drama that saw in a space of time shorter than the average Washington commute terrorists seize a cockpit by brutal force, repulse an initial attack by passengers and then crash a jetliner in a Pennsylvania field as their captives, throwing plates or anything else at their disposal, thwarted their plans. Much of the tape is unintelligible. There was loud static, and the voices, some speaking English and others Arabic, were often inaudible. It cannot be determined whether the passengers entered the cockpit, although it is certain they came close and forced the hijackers to abandon their attack on Washington. The recording made clear that a group of men and women, who knew the World Trade Center had been attacked, recognized that this was no conventional hijacking -- these terrorists were crashing planes into buildings -- and resolved to take control of their fate. "There is absolutely no doubt that through their heroic actions still more carnage and catastrophe was prevented," said Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks. The commission concluded that the passengers of Flight 93 stopped an attack that was aimed at Washington, most likely the Capitol or White House. The hijackers, as shown on a computer simulation played on monitors throughout the courtroom, jerked the plane violently to the left and right during the struggle. They tried to cut off the oxygen as passengers banged on the cockpit door. In the end, as the passengers were either in the cockpit or moments from entering it, the hijackers turned the plane upside down -- and crashed it. "Allah is the greatest!" one screamed nine times as the plane went down. The recording then went dead. The courtroom was silent. The trial seemed an afterthought yesterday amid the drama of the recording. Prosecutors rested their case for the execution of Moussaoui, the only person convicted in the United States in connection with the attacks on the trade center and the Pentagon. The defense will now begin its case, and Moussaoui is expected to take the stand again as early as today. In the trial's first phase, Moussaoui testified that he had planned to hijack a fifth plane and crash it into the White House on Sept. 11 with a crew that included shoe bomber Richard Reid. The jury found Moussaoui eligible for the death penalty and will decide whether he should be executed or spend his life in prison. Reid could testify before the jury gets the case. D. Hamilton Peterson of Bethesda, president of Families of Flight 93, said the public airing of the recording should put to rest any lingering questions about what happened aboard the Boeing 757. "The paramount issue was, Did the passengers and crew thwart the plane from its intended target? And that question has clearly been answered," said Peterson, whose father, Donald A. Peterson, and stepmother, Jean H. Peterson, died on the plane. "Whether or not they were actually into the cockpit or tearing the door off the hinges at the time it was scuttled is something history will have to answer." Prosecutors played the voice recorder tape as part of their effort to show the jury the extensive damage caused by Sept. 11 and the suffering and loss of the victims. More than 35 survivors and family members testified in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, including Lorne Lyles, whose wife, CeeCee, was a flight attendant on Flight 93. He brought several jurors to the brink of tears with his testimony yesterday about his wife's two calls from the plane. The first time the phone rang, Lyles, a Fort Myers, Fla., police officer who had worked the overnight shift, rolled over and went back to sleep. He did speak to his wife briefly when she called again. But only a week later did he hear the message she had left on his voice mail. "Hi, baby," CeeCee Lyles said in the call, a tape of which was played in court yesterday. "Baby, you have to listen to me very carefully. I'm on a plane that's been hijacked. . . . I'm trying to be calm." Saying she knew that planes had crashed into the World Trade Center, Lyles tried to keep her composure, but her voice broke as she ended the call. "I hope to be able to see your face again, baby," she said. "I love you, baby." Lyles said he has been in and out of counseling for the past five years. "I'm just now being able to appreciate a full night's sleep," he testified. "They say closure, but there's never any closure. It takes a piece of you." Moussaoui looked bored, as he did when the cockpit voice recorder was played. Jurors leaned forward in their seats. A large screen showed the path of Flight 93 and instrument readings of speed and altitude as Ziad Jarrah, believed to be the hijacking team's pilot, started the recording by announcing: "Ladies and gentlemen: Here the captain, please sit down keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb on board. So sit." It was nearly 9:32 a.m., four minutes after investigators say the four hijackers started their attack. The plane had taken off from Newark Liberty International Airport, bound for San Francisco, at 8:42 a.m. The sounds of a struggle in the cockpit were immediately heard, but it was unclear whether the pleading voice was male or female. The Sept. 11 commission concluded that a flight attendant, most likely a woman, struggled with hijackers in the cockpit and was killed or otherwise silenced. Hijackers on the four planes were armed with small knives and box cutters. When the plane turned around and started heading south through Pennsylvania, there were several minutes of silence. At 9:43 a.m., it started descending rapidly, leveled off, then descended again. The first sign of a struggle came at 9:57 a.m., when a hijacker said: "Is there something? A fight?" Passengers, who had made cellphone calls and learned of the earlier trade center attack, then rushed the cockpit. "They want to get in there. Hold, hold from the inside," a hijacker said. "Shall we finish it off?" one hijacker asked. "No, not yet," responded another. "When they all come, we finish it off." Within seconds, there was bedlam -- the sounds of a violent, almost animalistic struggle. People yelled and objects crashed, which Sept. 11 commissioners say was probably the passengers hurling objects at the cockpit door or ramming it with a beverage cart. "Down, down. Pull it down, pull it down," a hijacker said just before his colleague praised Allah and crashed the plane. In the background, a single voice could be heard screaming "No!" <hr></blockquote> Now go see the movie. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=nomo@rigorousintuition>nomo</A> at: 4/13/06 12:42 pm

by **HMKGrey** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:44 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Have you even listened to the call? She isn't stressed at all. She's very calm. And it's not misdialling a number with her finger on a keypad, it's saying a flight number that doesn't exist. I'm not saying it means anything necessarily, but you know, I think it's worth noting.<hr></blockquote> This is a good point. The audio is quite spooky. It's as though she's talking about some naughty kids up front who are misbehaving. It's slightly surreal in that regard. I too have been in a life-threatening situation (a mugging) and I can relate that my experience of it was one of complete alertness and sensitivity. I was really present throughout the whole experience. Both the build up and the act. In fact, that remains, to this day, my main memory of the incident; I felt completely and utterly alive. Not even scared, just sort of resolute and determined to live.

by **thoughtographer** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:44 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Well, that's it folks. The myth has become "real" says the Washington Post. Move along, nothing to see here.<hr></blockquote> Oh, fucking great. I guess it was only a matter of time. What a ridiculous farce. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>This is a good point. The audio is quite spooky. It's as though she's talking about some naughty kids up front who are misbehaving. It's slightly surreal in that regard.<hr></blockquote> Dittos! "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=thoughtographer>thoughtographer</A> at: 4/13/06 12:46 pm

by **NewKid** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:45 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Yes, but that's not the case in my example. The person dialed the wrong number as the result of an error in recall, and perhaps through force of habit. You don't dial a completely different three number sequence than the one you intended through a slip of the finger.<hr></blockquote> Sure they do. I know people who've dialed three number digits totally wrong. "And perhaps through force of habit." She must have a habit of making up non-existent flights. And "an error in recall" about your flight number? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Thanks, I will, and it's more than fair. Please point out the "weird shit" to which you're referring, or don't bring it up. And please don't bring up what she doesn't say, as it could easily be argued that she didn't say "it's a bright and beautiful morning out there" for the same reasons. <hr></blockquote> Lame. What people don't describe can be just as important as what they do. Why is this making you so uncomfortable? Do you have an inferiority complex about your screen name or something?

by **thoughtographer** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:51 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>What people don't describe can be just as important as what they do.<hr></blockquote> I'll agree to that being generally true, I just don't see it in this case. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Why is this making you so uncomfortable? Do you have an inferiority complex about your screen name or something?<hr></blockquote> I'm perfectly comfortable, and your bait is unappealing. Some lobsters go for kerosene-soaked bricks, but I prefer fish. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **NewKid** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:59 pm

Not trying to bait you, but I think you've been especially cranky lately about stuff that's really pretty silly. Your screenname, flight 93, and now Betty Ong. I find it hard to believe that the Betty Ong call holds some special significance to you. I don't think your arguments are persuasive, but I admit, I don't have a unified field theory of the Betty Ong call to explain to you. I think it's notable, that's all. I'm not the only one. But you don't have to.

by **thoughtographer** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:25 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Not trying to bait you, but I think you've been especially cranky lately about stuff that's really pretty silly. Your screenname, flight 93, and now Betty Ong. I find it hard to believe that the Betty Ong call holds some special significance to you. I don't think your arguments are persuasive, but I admit, I don't have a unified field theory of the Betty Ong call to explain to you. I think it's notable, that's all. I'm not the only one. But you don't have to.<hr></blockquote> Just be honest and admit that you were trying to bait me; there's no harm in it, and you can't fault me for seeing the hook and not falling for it. My chosen pseudonym actually means something to me, and you could probably benefit from looking it up and determining it's origin instead of assuming that you know what it means and making stupid jokes about it. It's related to a very interesting subject that many people choose not to acknowledge, and is a favored straw-man of debunkers new and old. Whether the phenomenon is "real" or not doesn't matter to me. It's there, phony or not, and it causes lively discussion. Like the Betty Ong call and many other issues you claim to find only noteworthy, but perhaps hints of deeper significance, I choose the name you call me by for similar reasons. Would your prefer to preach to the choir? If you don't think my views function within the dynamic of the discussion, whether you find them invalid, incomplete or otherwise, then it would seem you are just looking for sycophantic approval, or perhaps simplistic opposing viewpoints within the scope of your interests that make for better targets. I know I don't "have to" find the same significance you do in the things you're discussing, and it's clear that plenty of people agree with you. That doesn't prohibit or discourage me from commenting. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **NewKid** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:41 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Just be honest and admit that you were trying to bait me; there's no harm in it, and you can't fault me for seeing the hook and not falling for it. My chosen pseudonym actually means something to me, and you could probably benefit from looking it up and determining it's origin instead of assuming that you know what it means and making stupid jokes about it. It's related to a very interesting subject that many people choose not to acknowledge, and is a favored straw-man of debunkers new and old. Whether the phenomenon is "real" or not doesn't matter to me. It's there, phony or not, and it causes lively discussion. Like the Betty Ong call and many other issues you claim to find only noteworthy, but perhaps hints of deeper significance, I choose the name you call me by for similar reasons.<hr></blockquote> No, I wasn't trying to bait you, I really wasn't. As I said, I like your name, and am not belittling it. And I never assumed I knew what it meant either. I think you're reading too much into what I write. Like assuming I was mugged. I never said that. Like assuming I thought the govt was noble about flight 93. Again, I like your name. No need to defend it to me. You just seem a bit high strung, that's all. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Would your prefer to preach to the choir? If you don't think my views function within the dynamic of the discussion, whether you find them invalid, incomplete or otherwise, then it would seem you are just looking for sycophantic approval, or perhaps simplistic opposing viewpoints within the scope of your interests that make for better targets. I know I don't "have to" find the same significance you do in the things you're discussing, and it's clear that plenty of people agree with you. That doesn't prohibit or discourage me from commenting. <hr></blockquote> I like challenging comments, that's fine. And please keep commenting. You might tone down the edge though a bit please. And yes, I know, I've been much worse in other threads. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 4/13/06 1:43 pm

Testimonies at Moussaoui trial

Re: Let's Roll

Re: Let's Roll

Re: Let's Roll

Re: Let's Roll

Re: Let's Roll

Re: Let's Roll

Re: Let's Roll

WaPo: "Flight 93 Myth Becomes Real"

Re: Let's Roll

Re: WaPo: "Flight 93 Myth Becomes Real"

Re: Let's Roll

Re: Let's Roll

Re: Let's Roll

Re: A lot of good a hook does with no line

Re: A lot of good a hook does with no line

Who is online