Talk:Flight 93 cockpit recorder played in Moussaoui trial

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

maybe plane crash because hijackman could not fly plane? maybe crash has nothing to do with passengers? could "let's roll" be wrong for "roll it"? maybe tring to roll cockpit door open? don't know from transcript. Yrtsihpos 14:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Not news[edit]

All of this was described in the 9/11 Commission Report, and therefore is not newsworthy on its own. The tape being played at the trial, however, would be noteworthy. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 17:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

sorry, I don't undrstand? the sources are abut the tape being played at the trial. 64.229.66.38 20:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Miscelanos must not noticed story is about the tape played at trial and LATimes interpratation is real new too; so remove tag as tag just a mistake for sure. Yrtsihpos 20:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
What? No, this article is exactly what the title says: an opinion about calling the passengers not heroic. That is what is described in the WIKINEWS article. That is not newsworthy. The 9/11 Commission Report, which came out a long time ago, contains all the information about the struggle in the cockpit. It's old news. This article does not contain any other information that could be used in a current news article. Not only is this an editorial, but it's old news. Yrtsihpos, I know you're new here, so I'm going to tell you that removing tags when you feel there is a "consensus" is a bad thing to do. That shows that you are not keen to accepting opinions of others in the community. Also, "consensus" is only achieved through community-conducted polls, so you cannot claim your actions on it if it does not exist. Please do not continue to do these things on this wiki. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Must be my bad english,sorry, but miscelanos says "struggle in the cockpit" and the way this is new is the transcript does not show the passengermen ever got into cockpit at all. shows they did not because only arabs heard at end of transcript. that is new to me that beemer and other americans never got into cockpit and also new to me that Times says all hero rumor and books now looks like lies or urbyn myths. Yrtsihpos 20:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the current headline and think this is newsworthy. I read the 9/11 Commission Report which did not quote the voice recorder in such detail. The Los Angeles Times treats this subject in a balanced way; this new information is good to keep in mind now that a motion picture is being released featuring this same subject. It's nice to be able to know the differences between history and Hollywood's version of it. Karen 04:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Be it as it may, if there is a movie, it should be mentioned. However, the commission's report makes this information quite old, other than the mentioning of the recorder being played in the trial. It has been contradicted already, which was highly publicized, so it is not necessarily newsworthy in that sense. Now, this doesn't mean the recording's content shouldn't be in the article, it just shouldn't be the focus (nor in the title), especially if we go into sensationalist statements such as calling the battle "heroic" (or not, for that matter). --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 04:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. There is a movie. It's not important for this story, but would be a related story if you want to write it.
  2. If there was a story with a highly publicized contradiction concerning these quotes, that fact makes its presentation in this court case even more newsworthy.
  3. The headline statement:
    1. isn't calling the actions (battle) heroic. If you think the headline is sensational, change battle to struggle.
    2. is the focus of the story. That's a great reason to summarize it in the headline.

Karen 18:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • That's called sensationalizing. We do not do that here. Yes, it is calling the battle heroic. It does not need to be summarized in the headline, because the focus of this article is outdated. It is not new news to restate what was stated in the past; the highly-publicized findings of the 9/11 commission already provided details of the cockpit recorder, and already came to a conclusion that the passengers did not make it into the cockpit. That's old news. This article simply cannot go on a focus of old information. That is not newsworthy to do so. -- (talk) – 19:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

MrMiscellanious, you seem to have a lot of bias about this story - stating the struggle was not heroic isn't the same as saying it was - you're confusing the two. You say that the confusion you're experiencing is called sensationalizing, and you're the only one who's suffering from it in this case as far as I can tell. Then you say "We do not do that here" which gives me the impression that you have multiple personality disorder. If you're talking about a specific policy defining a sensationalized headline, you'll need to first show that this headline meets that definition. A story updating or confirming something known should rely on older information being updated - changes in known information is news.

But I'm repeating my responses to yours as you're repeating your objections which address my responses to them. Nothing new is being said here - you're just ranting more.

However, I'll state something new - after reading your objections and expressions, I'm tending to think you've got more issues than what can be expressed in policy, and will now give less weight to your opinions when no additional or coherent reasons are provided with your complaints. Karen 21:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not welcome your comments, Karen, especially when you cannot take into consideration any statements that I profess. Therefore, until you can, I shall not take any of your comments into consideration. What I have seen of you is nothing short of blatant bias, if you are willing to publish half-written articles that do not conform to Wikinews' policies. I wish that you read them, study them, and abandon any personal feelings you have attached to articles. The articles you have pushed for publishing were atrocious - they simply cannot be here on this wiki. Our credibility as a neutral news source has been declining daily; and it's because of the half-truthed articles that get spewed out here. Pushing for them to be published certainly does not help the wiki at all. A little advice on the future, as well - if you wish to make comments, back them up with proof. If you wish to criticize me, do it without attacks. If you can't meet up to those qualities, then it's going to be a bumpy ride here. Your little statement above makes me wary. If you can't engage in a conversation, and realize that others have different thoughts, without calling them insane, then you are the one with issues. I advise you to take care of those off-site. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've no attached feelings to this story, but you need not take that into consideration - just realise this story's development was only the stage for my opinions of your actions, MrMiscellanious. What I'm trying to get from you is some rational reasoning, just so I know you're not wholly a raving lunitic who persists in using the royal "We". It would help me to better understand you if you'd list atrocious stories I've voted to publish, along side them list the ones that aren't. Briefly state in a few words why each falls into either category; educate me. "Back them up with proof," as you stated to me. I'd like to be very critical of you when you act the way you do, when dealing with people as if they can read your mind and know your reasons. I'd like to know how you interpret written policy against the judgements you frequently make without listing reasons. I'd like to know what bias you've seen in me - bias towards getting to the truth? If I am making comments without proof, I'm not alone. If I am being critical of people (instead of their statements or actions), I'm not alone. I view you as doing what you're telling me I shouldn't. The critical issues you profess I have can't be solved off-site - unless you're going to inform me about them some other way. You're going to need to engage in this conversation after you realize that I have different thoughts than you, MrMiscellanious - thoughts that I'm expressing while asking you to do the same with a minimal of personal bias of your own. Unlike you, I welcome others' comments. Karen 06:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Every judgement I have made is based on policy here. That is how I operate - I don't give a crap what I think personally. You are acting like a troll now, and I suggest you stop. I will not stand here and listen to your slanderous filth; if you ever so much as make another sludging remark such as that again, I will make sure you are recommended to be blocked under the personal attacks provision for as long as policy states. If you want some place to put them, put them here: User talk:Mrmiscellanious/Sludge. But as of now, I'm going to state that you cannot welcome anyone else's comments; you feel that your word is the final decision, and there is no way that any others will have any input. That is not how a wiki works, and you should not call yourself a member of this community if you continue to act in those ways. Not only is it detrimental, it gives others a sense that this wiki only allows a certain group of people here. Step off your high horse; you're stepping on actual contributors. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

MrMiscellanious, you're Not news. You have not provided reasons for your objections, only excuses. Please recommend that I am blocked - then finally I'll see your reasons. What you've said I've done is exactly what you've been doing - name-calling, disruption of the community you claim to be defending, exaggeration for drama, and objections without reasons to name a few. I've asked for your constructive comments to your criticism of my work here, and instead I get your personal attacks. Shame on you. Karen 04:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You've called me insane. You've stated that I am biased without providing proof. I don't think that is very constructive, and if you do, then I'm dumbfounded. You've never asked for constructive comments, and have instead resorted to attacks and unilateral decision making. That is not constructive. I'd suggest you read our policies again. Until you have something mature to discuss, I will continue to ignore your comments. This user will only treat you the way you treat me. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 13:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

MrMiscellanious, my references to multiple personality disorder and the royal "We" were guesses as to why you'd refer to yourself in plural. It's seems more likely now that you were speaking for Wikinews as a whole ("I'd suggest you read our policies again"). You're correct, has little to do with the story, but it doesn't help your credibility. You never met my request for constructive comments on my "blatant bias" and "atrocious" choice of stories. More to the point of this story, I was asking for reasons behind your positions; you'd only go as far as to say it was covered in policy. Your bias about this story was that according to you, it was not news. The biggest failure on your part was in providing reason for that. Here's my bias: Although I personally have read much more than I want to about terrorist plane attacks, more of these stories will be news as the event continues to have effect, even if I don't want to read them. The consensus was that this story is news, and it was published. Your arguments about the headline were addressed, and the story turned more towards the trial - but as you can see, it kept returning to the point of when the "Let's roll!" phrase was uttered. The last sentence in the story was added not by me, but by Yrtsihpos who stated, "Please stop preventing addressing the urban myth. This is good background." Yes, that's old news - but he considers it background. Please make a bit of an effort to keep contribution discussions from being as hostile as they have been here, and I’ll do my best, as well. If you had been more positive in your actions and persuasive in your arguments, then I might have sided with you on some of your points. I hope this met your criteria for "something mature to discuss" as you consider these comments. Karen 19:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • You never once asked for positions behind here; you instead chose to diagnose me online with a personality disorder, accuse me of bias without even mentioning a single item of proof, and failing to even consider my statement. If you had, you would have noticed that I gave proof for my objections - the 9/11 Commission Report, which was highly publicized - provided the information that met my objections of this not being newsworthy. I then stated what items were newsworthy - the fact that this transcript was read at the trial. However, you and other users chose to ignore this. Then, you made your statement about me having a personality disorder. I saw no "consensus". Consensus comes by polls, and no one voted here. The bit about "Let's roll!" was not my doing, either. In the future, I hope you do not take sides - collaboration is broken there. And, even if you are qualified to diagnose people with diseases or disorders, please don't do it on a wiki in a discussion. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Although I feel that the situation is pretty clear, I want to comment on one particular aspect. MrM, please read Karen's comments a little more carefully. I have to admit that Karen's comment on "multiple personality disorder" is quite subtle, but she did explain it for you in more detail above in case you did not get it the first time around. Your claims about being "diagnosed with personality disorder" really seem quite ridiculous at this point. --vonbergm 20:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The impact of the reading affected the status of the "Let's roll!" phrase in this event a bit. Maybe it's given more attention that it deserves in this story, but I feel justified in leaving the story as-is for completeness.

As for consensus and polls, I voted. (See below) I'm the only one, and seem to have won by default. But Polls are evil, according to the Wikimedia entry. Consensus can occur with discussion. I voted because I thought it would be good to see where everyone stood on the issue, not just to decide the issue. If you're the only one with a specific opinion, then a poll wouldn't be to your advantage. Your best option is discussion, where anyone reading could respond to your objections if they thought your reasons made sense to them. Karen 22:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Strange wiki?[edit]

Tagman's comments make no sense at all. He seems to think the article is about struggle in cockpit but article is about how there was NOT a struggle in the cockpit. Tagman then disappear and not help at all. What is here? I am so coinfused. Yrtsihpos 03:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

I reverted, and readded the cleanup tag, there must be consences for it to be removed Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 05:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask that people that tag an article give some idea on what needs to be done to remove the tag? Nothing wrong with being constructive, or has this virtue become frowned upon lately? --vonbergm 19:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus about what?[edit]

What is the issue? Miscelanos seems to think the article is about struggle in cockpit but article is about how there was NOT a struggle in the cockpit. What is the issue you see? Yrtsihpos 13:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Publish — I've made edits on the issues I saw (two spelling, one punctuation). I consider this story ready for publishing. Karen 18:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

redundand information[edit]

MrM, could you explain why you insist on having the fact that the 9/11 commission viewed the transcript mentioned in two consecutive sentences. --vonbergm 20:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Because it was highly publicized as an outcome of the report. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. You have to mention that the commission has viewed the transcript twice, in two consecutive sentences, because it was highly publicized? Do you really believe that readers can not remember this bit of information from one sentence to the next? --vonbergm 20:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If it was highly publicized, then wouldn't it go without saying? I'm beginning to think there's other motives, either rational or hidden, for his actions. Karen 21:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

my two cents on w:Let's roll[edit]

Why does the article get stuck on the point about "Let's roll!"? I don't think "previous media reports" claimed that this was said in the cockpit. I thought it was said by Todd Beamer on the cellphone in which case we should not expect to hear it on the flight recorder!? See evidence from wikipedia article:

From Let's roll!

Beamer spoke his last known words to the group, overheard via the phone connection. The 9/11 commission determined that his final recorded words were actually "roll it" (in reference to a steward's trolley the passengers were using as a battering ram), but it was "Let's roll" that entered the popular consciousness.

To be honest, that final paragraph makes me feel weird. What does it add to the story if we have no reason to expect "Let's roll" to be heard in the flight recorder in the first place? It adds a subtle "bush lied about something in a speech" subtext, doesn't it? Dto1138 01:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the edit history and above discussion before you venture out on wild speculations about why certain things were included. The "Bush reference" was included much later than the "let's roll" quote, after more background on its importance was requested. --vonbergm 02:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The WP article has a couple of contradictions and does not really serve as a valid source for this. Taking a look around recent news articles I noticed that there are very different versions of the "let's roll" story out there, with CNN writing
One of the more storied calls comes from passenger Todd Beamer of New Jersey, who has a long conversation with a GTE Airphone operator, Lisa Jefferson. The call was not taped.
"Are you ready?" a fellow passenger asks Beamer toward the end of the call. "Let's roll," Beamer replies, according to Jefferson's previous account.
which contradicts the wikipedia as it claims that the call was recorded. This issue definitely needs more attention, maybe someone can try to figure it out. For now I agree that taking it out is the right thing to do. --vonbergm 02:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not certain Wikipedia claims that the call was recorded. "The 9/11 commission determined that his final recorded words were actually "roll it" doesn't imply to me that the phone call was recorded, despite perhaps that the call happened before the voice recorder recorded "roll it." I interpret "final" as in the last thing that was said by him which was recorded - that doesn't need to imply that there were earlier recordings of his voice. Yes, the original headline tended to make the story about the phrase, but the current headline brings the story back to the trial, even though there's a lot of redundant mentioning of the 9/11 commission. Karen 06:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I just addressed my concern about the mentioning of the 9/11 commission in an expansion of the story's last single-sentence paragraph. If anyone bothers to change or revert that particular edit, please let me know why - so I'll have better judgement next time. Karen 07:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Karen, the inconsistencies in wikipedia I was referring to are within articles around "Let's roll", like e.g. "and his last words "Let's roll" became a widespread catch phrase following the attacks." and "Todd's last words were, according to the 9/11 Commission, "roll it"" in the same article. I like your changes.

--vonbergm 18:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Many people still beleve the "let's roll" led to a real fight in the cockpit. It is censor to keep mith going; let the truth come please. Yrtsihpos 01:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
There's going to be more about this subject - a movie has been produced, titled United 93 which you can read about in this story: Dark Day Revisited - Five years later, Hollywood is betting that America is ready for films about what happened on 9/11. Are we? It will be interesting to see how historically accurate it is, especally with regard to the voice recorder. While we can only hear what happened inside the cockpit and are told what happened on the phone, nobody knows for sure what exactly happened on the plane. Karen 04:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Please add this article to Category:9/11. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Done --Jcart1534 06:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Reporting dead link www.whitehouse.gov[edit]

{{editprotected}}

MerlLinkBot (talk) 14:16, 21. May 2009