home

Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Again

The New York Times tracks the ever-changing details of al-Zarqawi's assassination.

Zarqawi, two men, two women and a young female child were killed.

At a briefing in Baghdad on Saturday, the American command's chief spokesman, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, reversed an earlier announcement he had made and confirmed that one of the dead was a small girl, age 5 or 6.

The general said three of the victims were men, including Mr. Zarqawi, and two were women. The general said he had no information to confirm or deny Iraqi news reports that had suggested that one of the women was Mr. Zarqawi's wife, and the girl his child. Hints of their presence, or perhaps of the presence of former tenants, were also scattered through the ruins: a rose-patterned dress, a pair of women's underwear, a leopard-print night gown, a child's shoe.

As for the questions that remain:

Chief among them was how Mr. Zarqawi, the terrorist leader killed Wednesday in the airstrike, could have survived for even a few minutes after the attack, as American officers say he did, when everything else around him was obliterated. Concrete blocks, walls, a fence, tin cans, palm trees, a washing machine: everything at the Hibhib scene was shredded or blown to pieces.

It seemed puzzling, too, given the destruction and the condition of the other bodies, how Mr. Zarqawi's head and upper body -- shown on televisions across the world -- could have remained largely intact.

There will be an autopsy the results of which will be released to the public:

With rumors circulating in the Iraqi news media that Mr. Zarqawi had begun to run from the house as the first bomb struck, American officials said Saturday that two military pathologists had arrived in Iraq to perform an autopsy on his body to determine the precise cause of his death.

They will also release the exact location of Zarqawi at the time of the bombing.

< Three Suicides At Guantanamo | Detainee Suicides Were by Hanging >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Revised to meet what standards. To make sure there was really a existence of the so called "King Of Chop" Zarqawi.

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#2)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 03:33:17 AM EST
    Big surprise, not They're probably still revising the details of Pat Tillman's death.

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#3)
    by jen on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 04:55:54 AM EST
    To be fair, it does take a bit of time for anyone to get information together when violence happens in such a chaotic environment. The press wants information yesterday. The military has the added burden of everyone in the chain having to look good.

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 06:17:56 AM EST
    this is beginning to sound like the rational(s) for the war itself: revise it every few days, see which one flies. i can't wait for the movie version.

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#5)
    by scribe on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 07:12:55 AM EST
    This backing and filling is getting, well, almost entertaining. We should note there have been (reliable MSM) reports that one of the first things done after getting to Zarqawi's (soon-to-be) corpse was to bulldoze the rubble into the crater. Those crime scene analysts should have a field day figuring out exactly where he was. Moreover, how would he (or anyone) know there was a bomb headed for him, such that he would take off running, as the reports now indicate is the (latest version of the) story? An F-16 on a bomb run travels several hundreds of miles per hour and releases its bomb from more than a mile away. One wouldn't hear the plane (they're relatively unnoticeable when coming at you head-on - their sound is behind them), even when at low level. We've heard reports they dropped the bomb from 10,000 feet or so, which would put the plane another two miles or more away (bombs have forward momentum and therefore move forward in addition to falling....). If one wants to try to find out how difficult to hear a jet plane at altitude is, next time you hear one fly overhead, look up and try to find it. Sometimes, you might see an airliner at 10000 feet or more, but the noise is relatively faint. So, we're expected to swallow that: (1) he supposedly became aware of an airstrike coming in (while the plane was miles away), (2) in the middle of the night, (3) while inside behind thick reinforced concrete bunker-like walls (which block sound), (4) with a couple women and children and aides (all of whom make noise and confusion and all of whom he supposedly left behind, despite whatever familial love he may have had for them), (5) managed to figure out the strike was for him (in a country full of US air patrols and high performance aircraft flying over all the time, how would you know this one was for you and you should run?), (6) managed to get out the door through the mess of people and the inevitable ensuing confusion and darkness (the bombsight video does not show that the house was lit up from the inside - it was dark, something to be expected in a country largely without electricity), (7) took off running in the dark (and didn't trip over or run into anything) on his one or two good legs, (8) managed to get far enough away from 2 500 lb bombs such that he (a) survived their explosions and (b) was not buried, shredded or pummelled to death by the several hundred cubic yards of earth, rock, concrete and steel house parts, vegetation, furniture, kids' toys, bomb fragments and whatever else thrown up into the air by the explosions (about which more anon) and (c) was a little cut up but not too dirty and (d) was not so far away that he was not "unfindable" among the smoke and mess immediately after the explosions, by medics who just happened to be in the neighborhood to put him on the stretcher from which he tried to roll off and escape, and (9) managed to do all this broken-field running without being picked up by any of the sensors (especially the bombsight video) on the F-16 (or elsewhere), to our knowledge. Let's talk about aerial bombs. The size of the hole (into which a lot of the rubble apparently has been bulldozed post hoc) seems coordinate to the explosion of 2 500 lb. bombs, but only if they were detonated some feet below the surface. It looks quite a bit like a "road crater", a form of demolition-created obstacle any former combat engineer would recognize. The only way to move that much earth is to set off the explosives below the surface; blowing up those bombs on the surface would not create holes that big, nor would it do the catastrophic damage to the building which we have been told took place. Exploded on the surface, they'd do a lot of damage and leave a mess, but not a hole that big, nor that deep. Just ain't gonna happen. But, what goes up must come down, and all that rubble got moved several hundreds (even thousands) of feet in the air and then came down just as fast as it went up. Raining down, this stuff somehow managed to miss hitting Z, at least enough such that he was still conscious and able to try to get away. And, the stuff that went sideways (instead of straight up) managed to not cut him into a zillion pieces, even though a lot of it was steel - reinforcing bars and bomb casings and whatever else. Yeah. The string of possibilities we're being fed seems to be to be more than a little-farfetched. I opine it's just as likely that Zarqawi was captured some time in the past (allowing him to make that video holding an American-made-and-issued machine gun), then was either beaten such that he would die, or staked out near the house, and the house destroyed either by the aerial bombs alone, or in combination with pre-set explosives with the anticipation that the bombing would finish the job. I further speculate that when he survived the bombing, his captors finished the job, pummelling him in a way that they thought might look similar to bomb injuries. It's speculation, but given the timing of this episode - just when the Unit needed it most - and the cynicism these folks have exhibited over the years, I opine it cannot be excluded.

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 07:42:40 AM EST
    Good contextualizing Scribe. Thanks for gathering it all together in one post.

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 08:25:10 AM EST
    Scribe - First, unless the aircraft is flying faster than the speed of sound, you will hear it on all sides. And I don't know the speed at which they launch weapons, but it isn't supersonic. But it is doubtful that he heard anything that would have caused alarm. As for the rest of your speculations, I refer you to Occam's Razor
    one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything
    I posit that he was just up and walking outside. Why makes no difference.

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#9)
    by scribe on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 09:00:31 AM EST
    Jimaka Please don't try to put words in my mouth to salvage the wingers' story. You need to pay attention to all the words, not just the ones you like. Here's what I wrote:
    An F-16 on a bomb run travels several hundreds of miles per hour and releases its bomb from more than a mile away. One wouldn't hear the plane (they're relatively unnoticeable when coming at you head-on - their sound is behind them), even when at low level. We've heard reports they dropped the bomb from 10,000 feet or so, which would put the plane another two miles or more away (bombs have forward momentum and therefore move forward in addition to falling....). If one wants to try to find out how difficult to hear a jet plane at altitude is, next time you hear one fly overhead, look up and try to find it. Sometimes, you might see an airliner at 10000 feet or more, but the noise is relatively faint.
    To elaborate (and refute you): (1) I never said the bomb-dropping plane was supersonic or subsonic. In fact, there's no way of knowing from the press reports. That issue is open. BTW, there is little time for the noise of a plane flying at high subsonic speeds, say 400-500 mph, to reach the hearer because of something similar to the doppler effect one hears with train whistles (remember your 8th grade science class?); the plane is moving at a significant percentage of the speed of its own sound. Besides, I qualified my statement: "relatively unnoticeable" (2) The jet exhaust, whence the noise of a plane, is at the back. (3) The noise distribution from military aircraft (and civilian, too) is extensively studied and, to a degree, their designs have as a consideration minimizing the noise, especially ahead of the plane. (4) I can tell you from personal experience (on exercises) that on the ground one does not have much, if any chance, to hear approaching attack aircraft. At least, not before it's too late to do much about it. Like run, even. (5) You still haven't left the basement and gone outside to look for planes and see for yourself that you're far more likely to hear a jet at 10000 feet or above after it has gone over you, not before. And that the noise is relatively faint. Vis-a-vis Occam. I'm not adding anything to that which has been reported on the TV. Z was reported to have been in a house, later described as bunker-like with reinforced (with rebar) concrete walls, with a constantly-varying number of wives, kids and henchmen (all killed, it appears) and then somehow got outside of the house-became-crater in sufficient time that he was not blown to bits along with everything else in it as the bombs turned his "bunker" into a big smoking hole in the ground. His face's picture was plastered all over the TV, bruised and dirty, but no more so than one would appear after a hearty bar fight. He was reported to have been on a stretcher and tried to get off and get away, but he was physically restrained on it, where he died. I'm merely reconfiguring the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the publicly-available facts to come to an entirely different conclusion. In so many words, I'm also connecting the dots. What this shows - at a minimum - is that the official story is not deserving of any more credibility than the other stories using the same facts and inferences from the conduct of those transmitting those facts. In so many words, I'm showing more-than-reasonable doubt. IMHO, the administration story ties into too many of their current problems and supports too many of their policies to be a fortuitous finding of this guy. They found him at just the moment they needed, with just the means (e.g., monitoring cell phones) and wasted him, trasmuting a targeted killing into their concept of Dirty Harry-style "justice", all to nourish their loyalists' blood-lust.

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#10)
    by Sailor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 09:30:17 AM EST
    Scribe - First, unless the aircraft is flying faster than the speed of sound, you will hear it on all sides.
    wrong, ppj meet doppler.

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 12:30:01 PM EST
    Rereading Dexter Filkins' three stories about the death of Zarqawi reveals a big disconnect with the ever changing 'official' version of the story. Before the bombs were dropped NYT:
    BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 8-Muhammad Ismael, a 40-year-old Iraqi taxi driver, was standing outside his home in the tiny village of Hibhib on Wednesday evening when something unusual caught his eye. Three GMC trucks, each with blackened windows, rumbled past his home and toward the little house in a nearby grove of date palms that for more than three years had stood abandoned. Commandos from Task Force 145, the antiterrorist unit, moved into Hibhib and surrounded the grove. In Hibhib, Mr. Ismael, the taxi driver, said American soldiers began swarming the town, seemingly coming from nowhere, with some soldiers sliding down ropes dropped from Black Hawk helicopters. His account largely tracked with the one offered by the American military. "The entire village was seized," Mr. Ismael said. As the American commandos took up positions, Mr. Ismael said, someone from inside the house in the date grove began shooting. The Americans returned fire, Mr. Ismael said, but the firefight did not last long. One of the F-16's, now in position over Hibhib, released a laser-guided 500-pound bomb.
    Now the US claims that there were no commandos near the house. They arrived 10 minutes later. Looks like a lot of the townfolk will have to be silenced in order for the new story to stick. From his June 9 article:
    When Iraqi police officers entered the ruins ahead of the American soldiers, they found Mr. Zarqawi badly wounded but still alive. The Iraqis strapped him to a gurney, General Caldwell said. American soldiers arrived almost immediately thereafter and quickly identified Mr. Zarqawi, the most hunted man in Iraq, by his scars and tattoos, General Caldwell said.... ....Some of the emerging details raised new questions, such as how and why the Iraqi police arrived at the scene of the airstrike before the American commandos who had surrounded the house, and what they did once they arrived. American troops have sometimes stepped aside for Iraqi soldiers or police officers to enter a mosque or other building, but never at places as sensitive as the presumed hiding place of Mr. Zarqawi. .
    So the commandos waited for the Iraqi soldiers to go in first? How strange. From his June 10 article-
    At that point, the general said, there were no coalition ground troops positioned near the house. Similarly, he said, the United States Air Force F-16 fighter jet that dropped both bombs was one of two aircraft that were on a "routine mission" in the area, with no planning for the bombing, when they were ordered to carry out the attack immediately.... The combat camera images of the attack released on Thursday showed a large white dot circling the target area at relatively low altitude before, during and after the bombing, the characteristic signature of a reconnaissance drone.
    Predator drones are equipped with surveillance cameras. So all actions before and after were monitored and recorded. The fog of war excuse doesn't cut it. The epic Zarqawi legend has ended with the same poor quality BS that it started with. Sadly the untalented scriptwriters have managed to spin a tale that has been swallowed whole. Not a good reflection on the american public nor the integrity ot the spinners.

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    Sailor - See below. Scribe - I gave you your point that the terrorist involved would most likely have heard/seen nothing to disturb him. So I don't understand your jockies in a wad state. My comment re your General Science observations was merely that it would be possible to hear the aircraft on all sides, I didn't mention Doppler because the issue was "hear" not the apparent frequency. I made the note about "faster than the speed of sound" because if an aircraft is approaching at say twice the speed of sound, because the relative time between sight vs no sound to sound is exceedingly short. At around 11 nautical miles per minute you would probably have about 10-15 seconds. (Do the math if you want.) What you would hear is a low volume high frequency hiss rapidly becoming a high volume/higher frequency falling in volume and frequency as the aircraft goes by. Works the same for subsonic, but the time is longer. And of course the time of hearing is also impacted by the volume of noise coming out the back end of what you call "jet exhausts." Glad to know that's what they are. All this time I have thought they were air conditioner exhausts because pilots always start to sweat when they quit. And neither of us knows the prescribed launch speeds of various weapons from an F16. But I still believe it would be subsonic. And neither of us know the prescribed launch altitudes. What you have done is exactly what Occam advises against. You have taken all the speculation around and combined to come to a conclusion. And the conclusion is that he was put there after the attack by the government for some nebulous reason. You think up this complex plan using many parts/people when all they had to do was pump him full of holes and announce he had been shot in a fire fight. I ask again, why make it complex? Even worse, if this was a conspiracy to fake things, and if they were concerned about recovering a body, why the second bomb? So I'll just go back to my theory that he was out walking and was thrown away from the blast far enough to not have been destroyed by the second. But you, and the Left, are certainly welcome to speculate. The more people who look around and say of the theories... "This is nuts," the better the Repubs like it.

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 01:08:14 PM EST
    Scribe - If you want to believe the NYT article Squeaky provides, then Zarqawi knew full well he was under attack, so it is likely that he was running from the house when it was bombed. "Oopps there goes another rubber tree plant..."

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 01:35:37 PM EST
    The Reptiles hate nutty theories. Better to stay on the solid ground of established fact such as the Rooskies loaning Saddam their Romulan cloaking device in order to move the WMDs, gays causing 9/11 and Katrina, "This land was given to us by God", regime change foretold in Revelations etc. None of that goofy tin hat forensics or evoloutionary theory stuff.

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 01:41:31 PM EST
    It's not surprising to see the desperation from the cornered rabid dogs of the right so vocal and snarling here the past couple of days. They were hoping for a nice bounce in the polls for bush from the Zarqawi propaganda blitz that never materialized, and they're going to do their best to try to create it out of thin air with their pitiful efforts here and elsewhere that would be funny if they weren't so tragically disgusting. Guess what guys? It's not working. You've blown your load. When will you realize that people aren't buying your wot and scare tactics anymore? Support for war continues to dwindle:
    His handling of Iraq and the fight against terrorism hit new lows: 33 percent approved of his actions on Iraq; 39 percent on his fight against terrorism.
    People had an even lower opinion of the Republican-controlled Congress. Only 24 percent approved of the way it's doing its job, essentially unchanged from last month but still a new low.
    Desperation Politics US News & World Report
    So what's ahead for the rest of us? A midterm election, it seems, in which each party will operate in a parallel universe: That is, the Democrats will try to nationalize the election as a referendum on the president; the Republicans will instead try to localize each race. "If it's a referendum on the president, we lose," one top House Republican tells me. "We have to make sure we run good local races, and then we'll survive. Which is all we can ask for."
    Your boy better come up with a real doozie of an October Surprise for you, or you're in for one hell of a November Surprise. Fasten your seatbelts.

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 01:43:26 PM EST
    So I'll just go back to my theory that he was out walking and was thrown away from the blast far enough to not have been destroyed by the second.
    Another disney fantasy by ppj. Kind of like in the film Bambi Meets Godzilla
    Commandos from Task Force 145, the antiterrorist unit, moved into Hibhib and surrounded the grove. As the American commandos took up positions, Mr. Ismael said, someone from inside the house in the date grove began shooting. The Americans returned fire, Mr. Ismael said, but the firefight did not last long.
    NYT Your drinking buddy Hitchens at least admits the possibity propaganda element in play.
    By Christopher Hitchens Posted Thursday, June 8, 2006, at 2:00 PM ET (And, if that claim is black propaganda, then it is clever black propaganda, which is also excellent news.)
    link

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#17)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 01:48:09 PM EST
    I wonder if he's gonna be going around rounding up all the copies of The Trial of Henry Kissinger before long.

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#18)
    by scribe on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 02:06:45 PM EST
    Edger's got the point - regardless of whether killing Z was a put-up propaganda exercise or not (and it smells like one to me), the Rethugs did not get any positive bounce out of it. Rather, I think the following line is appropriate (and will gain some traction), given that we've been at this Wah on Terrah for lo on five years now: "Well, we got the one big bad guy, we got Saadam, we got his sons, and Osama's still hiding in caves. We can start bringing the boys home from Iraq, and on their way, send some to stop off in Afghanistan to finish off that Osama guy. Then we can go back to worryin' about important stuff like NASCAR and the NFL draft and bar-b-q competitions." No populace, particularly 'murcans, has any stomach for perpetual war (and therein lies one more of Rummy's core errors). I happened to see a documentary on one of the cable channels, re those diehards who were to have been guerrillas in post-war Germany to bring back the Nazi regime and how it turned out for them. The producers pointed out that it was Germans who turned them in, after a few bombings. Many thousands of Germans went out in the streets to protest against resumption of war, and it was Germans who tried them, and convicted them. Why? Because they were sick of war and wanted no more. We're getting there.

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#19)
    by dutchfox on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 02:40:39 PM EST
    Why did the military pathologists have to be flown in? What particular qualifications do they bring to the task?

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#20)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 02:50:03 PM EST
    scribe have a quibble. The perpetual war this time is not on our home turf as it was for the Germans. Attacks against the US by terrorists or as a reult of a black ops will stir the masses towards more hate of the ME and this is before a major disruption in oil supplies. Co,bine them and you have war for the next 20-30 years. Especially with corporate media spinning and hiding.

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 03:02:16 PM EST
    Why did the military pathologists have to be flown in? What particular qualifications do they bring to the task?
    Good point dutchfox. Mayvbe because it shows how serious the scritpwriters were about the last Zarqawi episode. it is, you have to admit, a great touch for the storyline. Especially after the first version had the US forces bring him to an undisclosed location where he was IDed by his fingerprints.
    Mr. Zarqawi was dead by the time American commandos got to the house, General Caldwell said.... Mr. Zarqawi's body was taken to an undisclosed location where an examination found scars and tattoos that matched those he was known to have. A fingerprint test came back at 3:30 a.m. positively identifying him, and DNA tests should also be returned soon, General Caldwell said.
    ah, the fine line between the fog of war and a smokescreen NYT

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#22)
    by killer on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 05:59:32 PM EST
    Sorry, Jim, usually I respect and occasionally agree. On this one, you started out wrong and should have just bowed to better arguments, or at least real world observable physics.

    Sailor and Jim, please stop sniping at each other with personal insults. Your comments will be deleted if you'd don't.

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#24)
    by Sailor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 06:34:57 PM EST
    TL, instead of deleting our comments why not just ban us both? I'm serious, I'd be perfectly willing to go along with such an arrangement. ppj has continually been insulting*, called me a liar and a coward, as he has done to a lot of folks*; my behavior towards him has not been much better. We have both violated your rules many times. I think it is only fair that we both be banned. * I have pages of links.

    Sailor, I will not ban you both but I will delete your comments with insults. Stop baiting each other. This is not your site. Nor Jim's. Your comments may stay only if you obey the rules. I'm tired of playing traffic cop between you. It's easier for me to just delete the comments and close the thread.

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#26)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:48:34 PM EST
    Thanks Sailor. Nice try.

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#27)
    by Patrick on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:38:46 PM EST
    This is not your site. Nor Jim's. Your comments may stay only if you obey the rules.
    neener, neener, neener.... ;-) You can hear planes as they approach depending on the surrounding terrain. More accurately, you can hear their echo but it's hard to spot them visually. In the right conditions you wouldn't hear it until is was already gone. I don't know of too many civilian passenger planes that cruise near 10000 feet. Everytime I've been on one, I've been much higher, altitude wise not chemically induced wise. As for the arrival times of the troops, it's very possible both scenarios are true. Perhaps there was a lightly armed SF unit that identified the target, but were not equipped or were not allowed to move in once the bombs had fallen. The "Troops" that made the contact didn't arrive immediately, but were held some distance out, or responding to the identification from another location. One thing I know from my life's experience, is that initial reports are frequently rife with errors and misreporting. Usually it's not malicious.

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:53:22 PM EST
    The US knew who was in the house as there was a predator drone parked above surveilling and recording the house. The unnecessary deaths could have been avoided with a good old fashioned siege. It is hard to imagine that the house could not have been secured and taken by a mere 100 Commandos from Task Force 145 with a predator drone providing surveillance technology. It is mind boggling that the #1 terrorist next to OBL would not be more valuable alive than dead.

    Re: Military Revises Zarqawi Death Details....Agai (none / 0) (#29)
    by Sailor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:28:16 PM EST
    Thanks Che. Patrick, you can't hear an echo before the source; by definition the path is longer. And the neener, neener, neener was amusing;-)
    Everytime I've been on one, I've been much higher, altitude wise not chemically induced wise.
    What, no cocktails or endorphin rush from joining the mile high club!? But seriously, at 10k feet and cruise speed there would have been no way to hear the bombing aircraft before the bombs hit. Gravity affects sound waves (freq dependent) also.