CVR: Why did family members hear something different in 2002?

[Andre II]

This thread is based on an older thread by John Doe II:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x23179


The newly releaed transcript of the CVR corresponds quite well with the statements of the Commission. Well, that's not really a surprise. May I ask how many days it takes with your Mac to produce a radioplay of below-average sound quality??

But do you remember this?

On April 18, 2002 family members were finally allowed to listen to the cockpit voice recorder. “The FBI initially declined to play the tape, saying it was too disturbing, and it was evidence that might be used in criminal prosecutions related to the attacks of September 11.” (Among the Heroes, p. 374). The family members were “forbidden from recording the tape or from taking notes” (p. 375).
Family members agreed that the passengers managed to enter the cockpit. Also Assistant United States Attorney David Novak “theorizes that the passengers had advanced into the cockpit”. (Among the Heroes, p. 376). And the Guardian writes
“a group of passengers overpowered the hijackers”.]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,687...

This is what according to family members can be heard at the end of the recording:
“One of the hijackers spoke about finishing off the flight, though the transcript suggested he could have been referring to the woman who had pleaded earlier for her life. Not yet, another terrorist cautioned.
Near the end of the tape, muted voices seemed to grow louder, closer. The scuffing continued. “I'm injured,” someone said in English. More shouting: “roll it” and “pull it up” or “lift it up” or “turn up”. A final rushing sound could be heard and, about three minutes after ten, the tape went silent”.
(Among the Heroes, p. 377)

So: No intention of the hijackers to crash the plane is heard. The last shoutings even indicate the intention to lift up the plane.

And what's about this?

Newsweek did obtain a transcript of the CVR recordings and wrote an article based on it and guess what. They didn't READ anything about the hijackers TWICE deciding to crash the plane:
That makes in the sum:
The family member didn't hear nor read what the Commission claims
Officials didn't hear it neither
Newsweek didn't read it neither.
(Newsweek, 12/3/01)

And this:
"Families of passengers and crew members aboard United Flight 93, the hijacked plane that crashed outside Shanksville, Pa., on Sept. 11, will hear nothing to resolve crucial questions about their loved ones' last minutes when they listen to the cockpit voice recorder next month, say officials who have heard the tape or read transcripts of it.
Officials said the tape, a loop that records the last 30 minutes of a flight, did not record the moments when the hijackers got into the cockpit and does not resolve how they took over or whether the pilot and copilot were then killed. It also does not make clear whether the passengers were able to force their way into the cockpit in an effort to regain control of the plane or whether the hijackers crashed the Boeing 757 deliberately or just lost control of it."
(New York Times, 3/27/02)

Now, on the one hand two sources claim that the CVR doesn't allow any conclusion about what happened to the plane and teh family members even believed their beloved ones managed to enter the cockpit and tacking the control of the plane. On the other hand we have the newly released transcript and the CR that clearly state that the alleged hijackers twice decided to crash trhe plane into the ground (not heard by family members) and we don't have what family members heard at the very end of the recordings: "roll it up" (in English and calmly spoken if I recall correctly).

How can we explain the huge discrepancies between what family members and a source heard and Newsweek concluded from reading a trsncript and now the released transcripts?

[AlienSpaceBat]

1. The obvious explanation

Is that the alleged CVR recording doesn't come from the recorder on flight 93. It has been a work-in-progress that has changed over time. It was faked once, then they want a different emphasis so they produce version two. As no-one has got either version to compare, all that we can say is 'this is inconsistent with what was previously reported', rather than holding both versions up in public and saying 'one or both of these MUST be a lie'.

We get caught out by the same problem that afflicts so many aspects of the search for the truth of 9/11. The amount of evidence we have is tiny compared with what exists (or existed), so the best that can be done is to compare fragments, usually secondhand as in this case.

Its so frustrating, but the withholding and destruction of primary sources makes it so difficult to assemble an authoritative account of what happened in so many instances. This has been the real masterstroke of those that have so much to hide - they set the memes running of the official story in the hours following the events, and the scraps of evidence in the public domain never add up to the incontrovertible in-your-face smoking gun that the majority populace seems to need.

[DemInDistress]

2. excellent opinion my alien friend and welcome to the club (DU)

its what we desperately need that "incontrovertible in-your-face piece of evidence...
:toast: :hi:

[Jazz2006]

3. The GU link doesn't work....

can you fix it?

[Andre II]

4. Here you go

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,686996,00.html

[Jazz2006]

5. Thank you :) n/t

[Andre II]

6. Any idea

to explain this?

[file83]

7. I have no idea how to explain it - the only thing that comes to mind is

that they heard two different recordings - neither one of which were necessarily authentic. There is no way such different interpretations and conclusions could come from the same tape - there have to be two.

Excellent analysis AndreII! I'm bookmarking this one...:thumbsup:

[Andre II]

8. I agree

the only explanation is that the versions are simply different.

[Andre II]

9. Any answsers? n/t

[Andre II]

10. Maybe in 2007 this will get an answer!?

Happy new year btw

:party:

[wildbilln864]

12. Great!

Thanks for bringing this to the forefront. I do hope we get some answers but not going to hold my breath. Keep up the good work!
Happy New Year!
:yourock:

[Bolo Boffin]

11. This account does not include the constant repitition

of "God is great" in Arabic, which lasts until the end of the tape, according to the transcript.

[Andre II]

17. And what's your conclusion?

to the question of the OP?

[wildbilln864]

18. kick!

:hi:

[mhatrw]

13. And what about the loud "whoosing" sound that the family members

reported hearing on their version of the CVR over the last minutes of the cockpit recording?

[JackRiddler]

14. Yes, I agree...

I remember the original reports just as you have them here. Good work bringing it up. (K&R, except no R allowed as we know...)

[Andre II]

20. Thanks! It's a pleasure n/t

[spooked911]

15. Tom Burnett apparently heard the hijackers talking about crashing the plane

on the ground

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x48033

[spooked911]

16. I bet he is the source of that particular line of disinfo

[wildbilln864]

19. this is a...

must kick! :hi:

[Andre II]

21. I hate to know that

Sid will not be happy with me kicking this thread up.
But it's not my fault that here is a valid question and not a single poster came up with anything even remotly close to an explication.
So question still stands.
And it's an important one.

[Diane_nyc]

22. Thanks for posting this. nt

[Andre II]

23. FBI interpretation

"Families of passengers who rebelled against hijackers aboard United Airlines Flight 93 said Friday the FBI theory that the terrorists deliberately crashed the plane into a Pennsylvania field was based on "limited and questionable interpretations" of the cockpit recording."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/08/attack/main567260.shtml

Now, if you look at the text of the CVR recording as it was released in 2004 (and also excerpts in the CR) then it is totally strange that the family members would judge the FBI theory as ""limited and questionable interpretations" of the cockpit recording".
As the quotes of the CVR already in the CR show the intention of the alleged hijackers is very clear:
, “Is that it? I mean shall we put it down? To which the other replied, “Yes, put it in, and pull it down.”

So, the above mentioned looks very much as another indicator that the family members heard something different in 2002.

[PatrickSMcNally]

24. Guardian link

The Guardian link doesn't seem to work anymore. Is this the one you had originally?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/19/september11.usa

[Andre II]

25. Yes, indeed

thanks for the update!

[victordrazen]

26. Anyone know which "family members" described what they

heard? Where does the story that the passengers were in the cockpit originate? Where did the "Let's roll" myth begin?

[IScreamSundays]

27. kick

[defendandprotect]

28. Good questions... and how can we explain all the missing and damaged black boxes...???

Which kinda brings us to JFK, Jr.'s and his plane's missing box which was giving off

a signal evidently while searchers were looking else where -- ???

Any news of anyone moving to strengthen these black boxes that keep disappearing ... or

are we all deciding not to waste our time with nonsense since it's obvious these boxes

are probably reporting info that the Bushco don't want revealed???

[zappaman]

29. yes

JFK jr was definitely killed!
the idea that an inexperienced pilot would crash a plane during unexpected nasty weather is just ludicrous!