Government plans to use Flight 93 cockpit tapes in Moussaoui trial

August 10, 2002 9:01 PM

Government plans to use Flight 93 cockpit tapes in Moussaoui trial "Additional recordings would be played from the cockpit of an executive jet that tracked Flight 93 on Sept. 11" "An official for NetJets, a company that sells shares in private business aircraft, confirmed that the plane tracking Flight 93 belonged to the company. The official, who asked not to be identified by name, said the company was asked not to comment on the Sept. 11 flight but would not say who made the request." Finally someone admits that there was a plane up there when Flight 93 crashed. But who was it and why?
posted by bas67 (15 comments total)

An F-16 on the wing which probably then shot the plane down?
posted by insomnyuk at 12:25 AM on August 11, 2002

Now they tell us. Sheesh.
Of course, it's been here for months, but at least someone's finally admitting it.
posted by hama7 at 12:47 AM on August 11, 2002

"Not only do we have a right to know, we have a duty to know what our Government is doing in our name... If there's a criticsm to be made today, it's that the press isn't doing enough to put the pressure on the government to provide information."
Walter Cronkite - On the 3-28-02 Media Matters Show on PBS.
posted by hama7 at 12:55 AM on August 11, 2002

Well, to me, it sounds like an executive jet that happened to be in the area and recorded transmissions from Flight 93.

Sounds perfectly reasonable. No conspiracy here. Move along.
posted by LMG at 1:25 AM on August 11, 2002

An executive jet following Flight 93, perhaps recording transmissions from them or perhaps even taping the downing of Flight 93 - this alone is reasonable, but the odd part is the secrecy. With all of the speculation surrounding how Flight 93 ended, why not release the information from the trailing jet? Cronkite is right, we have the right, and the duty, to know what our government is doing in our name. The secrecy probably is not hiding any conspiracy. Nevertheless, the mere fact that the government officials which we entrust to do our bidding keep this from the public is troubling.
posted by caddis at 6:12 AM on August 11, 2002

Well, to me, it sounds like an executive jet that happened to be in the area and recorded transmissions from Flight 93.

Hadn't all flights in the US already been grounded by that point? If that small jet had been following the flight, they had permission to ignore the mandate to land at the nearest major airport and get out of the airspace.
posted by warhol at 6:17 AM on August 11, 2002

The executive jet wasn't following, I don't think. It was in the general area when the tower realized something was going wrong with Flight 93. Some excerpts from their chatter with the tower has already been out. (best I could find was this, which is hardly enlightening.
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:58 AM on August 11, 2002

How many executive jets have you seen that are equipped to record radio transmissions from commercial passenger aircraft? If the supposed executive jet happened to access the heavy's frequency, it could *listen*. To record, it would need elint capabilities, the sort found on a DEA unmarked Gulfstream, perhaps. . . . Nothing here but too many questions. Move along.
posted by rdone at 9:38 AM on August 11, 2002

Sounds perfectly reasonable. No conspiracy here. Move along.

I don't think it's a conspiracy either, but this whole "move along" attitude is just as blind as someone that's convinced aliens shot down the plane. Anyone can make a stab at a reasonable answer and conclude they're right.

Give me facts and proof. It's hard to determine what benefit secrecy has in this case.
posted by jragon at 10:17 AM on August 11, 2002

For reference, here's the Sept. 13 news story that quotes an unnamed FAA employee saying it was an F-16, not an "executive jet."

Controllers have also learned that an F-16 fighter closely pursued hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 until it crashed in southwestern Pennsylvania, the employee said.

Although controllers don't have complete details of the Air Force's chase of the Boeing 757, they have learned the F-16 made 360-degree turns to remain close to the commercial jet, the employee said.

"He must've seen the whole thing," the employee said of the F-16 pilot's view of Flight 93's crash.
posted by mediareport at 3:06 PM on August 11, 2002

Recovered history about the mysterious "white jet:
http://www.flight93crash.com/second-plane-at-flight93-crash-site.htm
posted by rdone at 3:38 PM on August 11, 2002

``I'm hopeful there's some limitation on how much of this evidence they'll be allowed to be put on,'' he said in an interview. ``The loss is very real and gut-wrenching. But it doesn't change the fact that Moussaoui was in prison Sept. 11 and had been there almost a month.''

Would someone care to explain what relevance a) this tape b) who made it has to the trial of some guy who wasn't there? Is someone recorded saying what a shame it was that ol' Moussaoui couldn't be in on the fun? Shouldn't the trial actually focus on relevant evidence of guilt or inncence?
posted by ilsa at 4:40 PM on August 11, 2002

Perhaps the secrecy surrounding the NetJets plane has to do with who was aboard.

There are many, many high-profile people with NetJets shares (it's owned by Warren Buffett; Tiger Woods owns a share) who may not want it publicly known that they were there.

For more information on NetJets, check out Wired's article from June 2001 - a great read in any case.

NetJets also owns a number of Gulfstreams, which fit the widely reported profile of the second plane.
posted by Darryl at 6:15 PM on August 11, 2002

Nothing here but too many questions. Move along.

Many questions indeed, and it would be nice to have a real investigation into it. Maybe they could answer some of these questions too.

...Nah, never happen. Move along...
posted by homunculus at 6:17 PM on August 11, 2002

homunculus,

Those are indeed excellent questions and I would be really interested in the answers. My question is why aren't more people interested in asking those questions. Oh, I forgot, "we're at war". We are not supposed to ask questions.

Well screw that, I will keep asking those questions to anyone who will listen and even to anyone who won't.
posted by bas67 at 7:08 PM on August 11, 2002