Flight 93 Experiment You Can Try At Home

I was reading the transcripts of the cockpit voice recorder that allegedly came from Flight 93, and realized that something seemed very unusual.

According to the transcrips, voices of the passengers can be heard on the other side of the cockpit door, saying things about getting into the cockpit and "roll it," and apparent reference to a drink cart.

However, the question I have is this: How could the microphones in the cockpit pick up the sounds of the passengers voices through the closed cockpit door?

As an experiment, try this. Put your cell phone on the opposite side of a closed door, and record a voice message or call somebody. See how loud you have to scream before your voice makes it through the door to be heard on the message. You can even have somebody else hold the cell phone and speak into to it while you're talking on the other side of the door. This will give you a recording of the difference in volume between a voice near the cell phone's microphone, and the voice that's coming from the other side of the closed door.

Does it make sense at all that voices from the other side of the closed cockput door would be picked up by the pilot's microphone, especially inside of a jet airliner?

Or does it make more sense that these recordings, which have not been made public, were doctored to make it look like the passengers were heroes?

[edit on 3-2-2007 by nick7261]

You have a good idea, but of course there are some areas that would need to be in place. Background sound that would emulate the plane, and to speak through a door made of the same material the cockpit door was made of. Also the acoustics of the rooms play a major role to.

Originally posted by MicheleLee
You have a good idea, but of course there are some areas that would need to be in place. Background sound that would emulate the plane, and to speak through a door made of the same material the cockpit door was made of. Also the acoustics of the rooms play a major role to.

The background noise would only make it less likely that the passengers could have been heard on the cockpit microphone. And the door of the cockpit was solid, and would probably be less likely to allow noise to pass through than any door in the average home.

I'm not sure that the room acoustics play much of a role at all. The sound coming from the passengers, if you believe the official story, passed through the closed cockpit door and was able to be picked up clear enough by the cockpit microphone to make out specific words and sentences.

IMO, this is about one of the most unlikely aspects of the entire government story. This seems like a blatant propaganda campaign to paint the passengers as heroes. What makes it even more suspicious is the fact that the government won't make the recordings public?

Since when did our government take on the role of our mommy and daddy and decide what we can colectively handle psychologically? What's next? We won't be allowed to see photos of the dead soldiers from Iraq?

IMO, anybody who falls in line with the U.S. government's official position on any of this is bordering on clinically delusional.

I love this idea Nick but are you sure you can hear the passengers on the pilots mics????.

Would the cockpit have a listening device that would allow the pilots to hear what's going on outside the cockpit (in the passenger area)? I could be wrong but I would think they would have that ability for safety reasons.

If that device were turned on, then yes... the passengers voices on the other side of the door would be heard in the cockpit.

Originally posted by kuhl
I love this idea Nick but are you sure you can hear the passengers on the pilots mics????.

According to the transcripts released by the government you can. Too bad that we, the people, can't decide for ourselves if the government is being truthful with us.

Here's a link to the transcripts:

www.google.com...

Originally posted by annestacey
Would the cockpit have a listening device that would allow the pilots to hear what's going on outside the cockpit (in the passenger area)? I could be wrong but I would think they would have that ability for safety reasons.

If that device were turned on, then yes... the passengers voices on the other side of the door would be heard in the cockpit.

For there to be a "listening device" on the passenger side of the cockpit, there would have to be a microphone in the passenger area. This microphone would then have to have it's signal mixed somewhere into the headsets of the pilots.

Because the pilots require constant communication with the air traffic controllers, I would think for safety reasons that there is no way they would have any other voices piped into their headsets, especially from the cabin.

Plus, according to the government account, the voices on the tape were recorded through the pilot's microphone. The government never claimed the voices came from a cabin microphone.

The more I think about this, the more I think that this is one of the most important "smoking guns" that shows the government was providing misinformation about 9/11.

Can anybody seriously argue that the government has a right to withhold the voice recorder tape from the public? Under what premise does the government claim this right? National security?

Hate to break this to you but your "experiment" isnt going to prove anything. A cellphone in a house is in no way comparable to a 4 to 6 track recording made in an airliner. At what point did the passengers breach the door? Was the intercom phone in the first class galley off the hook? (and in this way, providing audio from the cabin into the cockpit).

Can the government withhold the cockpit voice recorder tape from the general public? Of course they can, they do it all the time. Have you ever heard the voice recorder from the Challenger? No.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Hate to break this to you but your "experiment" isnt going to prove anything.

Actually, the experiment would prove how much sound a cell phone microphone can pick up on the other side of a closed door.

And it's not my job to "prove" anything. It's the government's job. Without releasing the tapes, they are the ones who have not proven anything. Would you say the same to the government...

"Hate to break it to you [FBI, 9/11 Commission, FEMA, NIST, etc] but your little reports haven't proven anything."

A cellphone in a house is in no way comparable to a 4 to 6 track recording made in an airliner.

What difference does the number of "tracks" make? And it's the microphones that are comparable. The small mic in the mouth piece of a cell phone is comparable to the mic in the headset of the pilot. These are not omni-directional mics. These are both close-range, directional mics.

At what point did the passengers breach the door?

Apparently at some point after they are supposedly heard saying that they better get inside the cockpit or else they are going to die.

Was the intercom phone in the first class galley off the hook? (and in this way, providing audio from the cabin into the cockpit).

What makes you think that the intercom phone in the first class galley is recorded on the voice data recorder of the black box, or into the cockpit? Do you know for a fact that this is how the intercom works, or is this speculation that you are putting forth to try to make the government's story make sense?

By the way, the government presented these tapes at the Moussaui trial and never claimed that the voices from the cabin were coming through any intercom.

Can the government withhold the cockpit voice recorder tape from the general public? Of course they can, they do it all the time. Have you ever heard the voice recorder from the Challenger? No.

Of course the government can withhold the tapes. But I'm not sure that they do it all the time.

The question is, under what legal authority, or even legal principle, can the government withhold this from the people?

The government is supposed to be serving the citizens of the U.S. The government is not supposed to be withholding information that the citizens paid for to be collected. We, the citizens, are the owners of this information. What authority does the FAA have to keep this information to themselves, and to prevent the public from hearing it?

And I really hope that you don't honestly buy into the whole, "I think of our government like a parent who is there to protect us from being traumatized from hearing the tapes" crap.

What legitimate reason does the government have for withholding these tapes?

Actually, the experiment would prove how much sound a cell phone microphone can pick up on the other side of a closed door.

Which, in no way, shape or form is going to come close to replicating the system on an airliner. So in regards to Flight 93, it won't prove a doggone thing.

And it's not my job to "prove" anything. It's the government's job. Without releasing the tapes, they are the ones who have not proven anything

And you do not believe what the government has produced in a court of law. They DID play the tapes for the victim's families and for the court, as for the rest of us, we do not have a right to hear them.

What difference does the number of "tracks" make? And it's the microphones that are comparable. The small mic in the mouth piece of a cell phone is comparable to the mic in the headset of the pilot.

The tracks allow for noises to be separated. Mechanical noises, radio noises, voices etc....Very important when figuring out what was going on. The mics do not compare at all.

Apparently at some point after they are supposedly heard saying that they better get inside the cockpit or else they are going to die.

Actually, it was recorded after the time they think the door was breached according to people who did listen to the tapes.

What makes you think that the intercom phone in the first class galley is recorded on the voice data recorder of the black box, or into the cockpit? Do you know for a fact that this is how the intercom works, or is this speculation that you are putting forth to try to make the government's story make sense?

Well this is where I get branded I guess.....I have 20 years of experience working on avionics on about a dozen different types of aircraft including intercom AND voice/data recorders. So I think I MIGHT know a little about the subject.

The government is supposed to be serving the citizens of the U.S. The government is not supposed to be withholding information that the citizens paid for to be collected

Really? Does the CIA know this? I dont recall them disseminating the intell they collect to the general public..........

What authority does the FAA have to keep this information to themselves, and to prevent the public from hearing it?

They have all the authority they need. There is NOTHING in any of our governing documents that says you, as a private citizen, has access to EVERYTHING.

And I really hope that you don't honestly buy into the whole, "I think of our government like a parent who is there to protect us from being traumatized from hearing the tapes" crap.

No, its called out of respect for the families of the victims. Is that really so hard to understand?

I tried it with a baby moniter and could her what was said and I figure that is the type of mic they would use in the cockpit.

Not a phone mic made for talking directly into.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Of course it won't "prove" anything. Like I said, it's not my job to prove anything, it's the government's job.

It's the government that hasn't proven that any al-Qaeda terrorists were responsible for 9/11.

And you do not believe what the government has produced in a court of law. They DID play the tapes for the victim's families and for the court, as for the rest of us, we do not have a right to hear them.

No, I don't believe what the government has produced in court because I didn't get to hear it. I only read the transcripts, which raised questions in my mind regarding the ability of the pilot's mic to pick up the voices of the passengers on the other side of the closed cockpit door.

The tracks allow for noises to be separated. Mechanical noises, radio noises, voices etc....Very important when figuring out what was going on. The mics do not compare at all.

This is where it's time to call b.s. Are you saying that the voice recorder is a multi-track recorder, or are you saying that there were multiple signals being mixed together onto a single-track recording? The fact that you even mention that the mics don't compare in relation to the track issue displays a certain lack of expertise on this subject.

Further, are you saying that the multiple tracks are segrated so that noise is on one track, radio noises on another, and voices on another?

You seem to lack even the most basic understanding of the concept of multiple track recorders.

Actually, it was recorded after the time they think the door was breached according to people who did listen to the tapes.

This is a very interesting example you've raised. The government's position on this was that the voices of the passengers were on the cabin side of the closed cockpit door. Hence, the theory that the voice heard saying, "roll it" was in reference to using the drinking cart to break down the closed door.

Maybe those who've actually heard the tape realized that the only way those voices could have been picked up by the pilot's mic was if the door was already open. Of course that would sort of blow the theory that the passengers were the ones saying things like, "Let's get into the cockpit..." etc.

If you take 5 minutes to read the transcript it's very obvious that there is no way the door was open during much of the conversations. Please don't confuse the final scene from the movie "Flight 93" with reality.

I have 20 years of experience working on avionics on about a dozen different types of aircraft including intercom AND voice/data recorders. So I think I MIGHT know a little about the subject.

Working on intercom and data recorders does not qualify you as an expert on the design and engineering of the audio recording system on Flight 93. If you were an expert, you'd have a better understanding of what multiple tracks referred to.

Really? Does the CIA know this? I dont recall them disseminating the intell they collect to the general public..........

The voice recordings are not "intel" and have no national security value.

No, its called out of respect for the families of the victims. Is that really so hard to understand?

This is what Lorie Auken, a family member, had to say on this subject:

"And finally, without compromising our national security, it would have reported all of its findings, with its redactions blacked out and submitted to the American people. In essence, the Commission could have produced a final product where the resulting conclusions and recommendations could be trusted. Instead, at the end of the day, what we got were some statements that truly insulted the intelligence of the American people. Violated our loved ones’ memories, and might end up hurting us, one day soon."

Originally posted by nick7261
Apparently at some point after they are supposedly heard saying that they better get inside the cockpit or else they are going to die.

This line might be evidence that the passengers knew they were going to be shot down if they did not gain access and take back the cockpit.

Originally posted by conspiracy_101
I tried it with a baby moniter and could her what was said and I figure that is the type of mic they would use in the cockpit.

Not a phone mic made for talking directly into.

Actually, the pilot's microphone would be very similar to a cell phone microphone in that it would be directional. A baby monitor's microphone is omnidirectional so that it can pick up sounds from all directions.

The idea is that the pilot's mictophone would be designed to pick up only the pilot's voice, not extraneous noise from the cabin or cockpit even. This is critially important when flying a plane so that communications with air traffic control are clear. The air traffic controllers don't need to have extra sounds or voices in their headsets.

these things seem very sensitive. more so thain the avarage cell phone.

CVR & FDR

I tried your experiment with my computer mic I stood outside of my room with audacity recording, Then I said in a normal tone "lets roll" the microphone did pick up the sound of my voice and I could hear what I said distinctly.

With the proper filters and a professional I am certan that the CVR would have picked up the sounds of the people trying to get into the cockpit.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by nick7261
Apparently at some point after they are supposedly heard saying that they better get inside the cockpit or else they are going to die.

This line might be evidence that the passengers knew they were going to be shot down if they did not gain access and take back the cockpit.

Of course I'm sure the 9/11 commission report addresses this subject, right? I mean they did have a passenger call from the bathroom of Flight 93 and report and explosion and white smoke.

What? The 9/11 Commission report didn't address the issue of the smoke and the explosion?

Seriously, back on topic, even if the passengers were planning on storming the cockpit, the questions remain:

"How could the pilot's microphone pick up the voices of the passengers behind the closed cockpit door?"

And, "Why would this tape not be made public?"

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by nick7261
Apparently at some point after they are supposedly heard saying that they better get inside the cockpit or else they are going to die.

This line might be evidence that the passengers knew they were going to be shot down if they did not gain access and take back the cockpit.

Of course I'm sure the 9/11 commission report addresses this subject, right? I mean they did have a passenger call from the bathroom of Flight 93 and report and explosion and white smoke.

What? The 9/11 Commission report didn't address the issue of the smoke and the explosion?

Didn't the tape also supposidly pick up the people in the cockpit screaming and the sound of air rushing in (almost like the windows had been shot out) ?

Didn't the tape also supposidly pick up the people in the cockpit screaming and the sound of air rushing in (almost like the windows had been shot out) ?

I've read reports that claim that people who actually heard the tape believe that they could hear the sound of air rushing in.

Of course, as with any good propaganda campaign, the perpetrators of the propaganda create two stories -the "official" story, and the "rumor" story. The key for the propaganda to work is making people debate whether the "official" story or the "rumor" story is true, and to have both stories contain the presupposition that the government wants you to believe.

In the case of Flight 93, the "official" story is that passengers became heroes and crashed the hijacked flight. The "rumor" story is that Flight 93 was shot down before the hijackers could crash into the White House.

Both the "official" story, and the "rumor" story contain the presupposition that arab hijackers took control of Flight 93, which led directly to its crash.

So it's easy to understand why the tape hasn't been made publicly available. The transcript of the tape supports the "official" story, and failing to release the tape supports the "rumor" story. This way the debate is focused on whether or not the flight was shot down, not whether or not there were arab hijackers on the plane.

Originally posted by nick7261

Didn't the tape also supposidly pick up the people in the cockpit screaming and the sound of air rushing in (almost like the windows had been shot out) ?

I've read reports that claim that people who actually heard the tape believe that they could hear the sound of air rushing in.

Of course, as with any good propaganda campaign, the perpetrators of the propaganda create two stories -the "official" story, and the "rumor" story. The key for the propaganda to work is making people debate whether the "official" story or the "rumor" story is true, and to have both stories contain the presupposition that the government wants you to believe.

In the case of Flight 93, the "official" story is that passengers became heroes and crashed the hijacked flight. The "rumor" story is that Flight 93 was shot down before the hijackers could crash into the White House.

Both the "official" story, and the "rumor" story contain the presupposition that arab hijackers took control of Flight 93, which led directly to its crash.

So it's easy to understand why the tape hasn't been made publicly available. The transcript of the tape supports the "official" story, and failing to release the tape supports the "rumor" story. This way the debate is focused on whether or not the flight was shot down, not whether or not there were arab hijackers on the plane.

Erm....
Bullseye. I agree, 2 B/S versions of what happened.
Stay focussed people.