[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[A W Smith]

Can anyone produce any evidence that 175 even took off that morning?

prove that it did not take off. we already have the flight manifest and the ATC reports, your move.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I believe probable cause is needed to apply for a search warrant in the US, and enough probale cause to convince a judge that a search warrant is being executed properly. This would require the detectives to present all the evidence they have collected to this point and what they will be looking for. It is then up to the judge to determine if probable cause exists. He may elect to narrow the focus of the search warrant. For example, if you want to search for evidence in or around the suspects car, he may narrow your search to only the car or garage, rather than the entire property.

That's correct. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Probable cause has to be more than suspicion. It also has to involve the evidence that leads to that suspicion.

Also correct. From a Findlaw.com article:

The concept of ''probable cause'' is central to the meaning of the warrant clause. Neither the Fourth Amendment nor the federal statutory provisions relevant to the area define ''probable cause;'' the definition is entirely a judicial construct. An applicant for a warrant must present to the magistrate facts sufficient to enable the officer himself to make a determination of probable cause. ''In determining what is probable cause . . . [w]e are concerned only with the question whether the affiant had reasonable grounds at the time of his affidavit . . . for the belief that the law was being violated on the premises to be searched; and if the apparent facts set out in the affidavit are such that a reasonably discreet and prudent man would be led to believe that there was a commission of the offense charged, there is probable cause justifying the issuance of a warrant.'' Probable cause is to be determined according to ''the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.'' Warrants are favored in the law and utilization of them will not be thwarted by a hypertechnical reading of the sup porting affidavit and supporting testimony. For the same reason, reviewing courts will accept evidence of a less ''judicially competent or persuasive character than would have justified an officer in acting on his own without a warrant.'' Courts will sustain the determination of probable cause so long as ''there was substantial basis for [the magistrate] to conclude that'' there was probable cause. [citations omitted; emphasis added]

 

[Hokulele]

There is one thing that has been bothering me throughout this thread.

M, you do know what the visual differences between a 767 and a 757 are correct? I mean, in your OP you said.

Raytheon flew a 757 by remote control just a few short weeks before 9/11.

There is a difference between what a 757 and a 767 look like, and Apathoid can probably describe the differences in control systems better than, but how does remote control of a 757 have anything to do with a 767? In addition, the armored plane links you provided way back when have even less to do with a 767.

(On a completely derailing side note, I am currently sitting at Narita, and saw an A380 sitting off to the side. We went by in a 777, and the 380 is AWESOME!)

 

[SOMERLED]

IMO, short of taking you back in time (which is currently impossible) I don't believe you would accept any photographic (security camera), eye witness accounts, and ATC data. You have choosen to adopt a higher standard of evidence that you are unable to achieve even remotely (no pun intended)with your own theory. Anything that disagrees with your version of events is tainted or mistaken. We've seen this before on many subjects.

As I told another CTer, there are only two things that you can be 100% certain of in this world:
1. That you exist.
2. That you have senses. They may not provide you with the correct data, but you know you have them.

Everything else you know is based on past experiences. For example:
Do you know with 100% certainty that the Sun will rise tomorrow? Are you basing your answer on your past experiences (it always has before)?

This is why jurors are told to base their decisions on a "reasonable doubt." Rather than complete certainty.

Short of going back in time, it is impossible to answer every question about a given event. Hence, we are forced to rely on evidence, and analysis of that evidence by qualified experts in the needed diciplines.

All the evidence in this particular instance leads to only one reasonable conclusion. That 175 took off, was hijacked by extremists of a political and religious movement, and piloted by the same hijackers into one of the WTC towers. If you have evidence, other than conjecture to present, that these events did not occur, we would all be interested in seeing it. Without any evidence coming from you, your version of events hasn't even reached a hypothesis stage.

MEB-SG

Thank you for that. I believe I was the one who first mooted that we find agreement on the word 'evidence'.

 

[Belz...]

You will be familiar with Occom's razor.

That's "Occam" or "Ockham". It means we should favour the hypothesis with the least assumptions. For example, you're assuming a great deal when explaining your position.

Clouds move, clouds also vary in height from the ground. How can you be confident that at the moment you find yourself in the pilot's seat, you can even see the ground?

That's irrelevant. If a pilot can fly a plane in clouds, then another pilot can.

No one, as yet, has even addressed the fact that according to MSM reports, all that happened was that the 'transponder' was turned off. What about the pilot issueing a mayday? How unlikely is it, that terrorists could stage their antics in the passenger compartment and then in the pilots cabin, with the pilots asleep or otherwise out of it? It's akin to a group of robbers herding all the customers in a bank about, whilst none of the staff presses the silent alarm.

There is no silent alarm. From the moment the terrorists enter the cockpit, there is noting the pilots can do. This has been explained to you in the past. I can only surmise that you didn't read the answers or ignored them: Pre-9/11, the policy was to cooperate with hijackers, because no one ever thought they'd fly civilian planes into buildings.

Killtown was indeed one of my sources. However, I prefer to examine the veracity of my claims not his.

How ? All you've been doing is speculating from the onset.

After May 5th 1945, the five continents of the world were no longer embroiled in war. Therefore it ceased to be a world war.

Talk about moving the goalposts. If you use that definition, then there was never a world war.

Can anyone produce any evidence that 175 even took off that morning?

Please research the term "burden of proof". You're the claimant.

 

[Belz...]

Why should I disprove that, of all the planes that were in the sky that morning, the one that hit tower 2 was 175.
You are the one that is saying 175 hit tower 2. Now prove it.

Easy. You can check out dozens of different videos that show the plane entering the building. We have records of the plane taking off and being declared hijacked. We found parts of the plane all over the place.

What do YOU have, except incredulity ?

Millions of people saw A plane hit the south tower. 175 was a civilian aircraft, how could it's wings cut through corrugated steel that was strong enough to hold a concrete floor in place.

500+ mph. It's not just a matter of weaker vs stronger material, Malcolm. You should do some more research on balistics. It would help you a great deal.

How is a fold of aluminium going to make a dent in that. It isn't going to do anything other than drop to the ground like a thrown aaway piece of paper?

Again, never use your ignorance as an argument. Research the subject. There should be plenty of examples of weaker materials damaging stronger ones for you to choose. Hell, in fact some have been posted in this very thread. I assume you saw them.

The next contact with 175 was ...?

Irrelevant. Again, you cannot simply play with possibilities and claim victory. There is plenty of evidence that the plane that hit 2 WTC was 175. Photographic evidence, eyewitness accounts, recordings, logs. You have to show that the physical evidence is wrong with EVIDENCE of your own, not speculation. Do you understand this ?

What is the difference between 'objective' and 'subjective'?

"Objective" evidence is evidence that everyone can verify. This means it discounts hallucinations and dreams, speculation, personal bias and incredulity, etc. Basically it discounts pretty much everything you've said so far.

 

[Z]

Millions of people saw A plane hit the south tower. 175 was a civilian aircraft, how could it's wings cut through corrugated steel that was strong enough to hold a concrete floor in place.
If you have a steel wall, reinforced by a concrete floor resting on steel joists, connected at the other end to massive steel columns. How is a fold of aluminium going to make a dent in that. It isn't going to do anything other than drop to the ground like a thrown aaway piece of paper?
If it can't stand up to a bird in flight, how can it cut through the above structure?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l38oEJwAb1Q&mode=related&search=
Here's someone else who thinks as I do,
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/dud.html

Basic physics, actually, tells us that an airplane wing flying at those speeds would, could, and did slice right through the wall. You scoffed earlier at the 'pine needle through steel' comment I made, but it is the truth.

Speeds can turn even soft objects into deadly projectiles - especially against thin and rigid materials.

Also keep in mind that the nose of the plane - including the avionics package, the cockpit, frame elements (which weren't just aluminum), the landing gear, etc - had already penetrated the aluminum facade, underlying steel structure, and concrete floor pans, thereby weakening the material considerably.

The real world's physics and facts is strongly against your undereducated opinion, Mally.

Several other airplane impacts have borne out the same results. One was even posted on this thread, of a smaller and much more lightweight, slower aircraft that still penetrated a mostly concrete building. Automobiles, which are much slower and weigh far less than any jet, have smashed through steel-and-concrete framed buildings before.

Just because you can't believe it doesn't mean it's not true.

Therefore, your point in this post is refuted.

Now, as to your OP - your claim is that 175 did not hit the South Tower. The burden of proof lays firmly on your shoulders to prove it. The accepted norm is that 175 did hit the South Tower; any claim made against that is a claim that requires proof. Your insistant and child-like cries that someone else needs to prove it took off is attempting to shift that burden, but we won't have that. The accepted norm is that it took off; if you claim it never did, the burden of proof is STILL yours.

We eagerly await your evidence.

 

[Tirdun]

Millions of people saw A plane hit the south tower. 175 was a civilian aircraft, how could it's wings cut through corrugated steel that was strong enough to hold a concrete floor in place.
If you have a steel wall, reinforced by a concrete floor resting on steel joists, connected at the other end to massive steel columns. How is a fold of aluminium going to make a dent in that. It isn't going to do anything other than drop to the ground like a thrown aaway piece of paper?
If it can't stand up to a bird in flight, how can it cut through the above structure?

I believe all your questions are answered by our friend Newton. Force = Mass times Acceleration. It was a big plane going very fast. A fact that thousands of engineers and physicists have no difficulty understanding.

Also, you're shifting the burden of proof. Do you honestly expect the forum to prove that 175 did every tiny thing that it's supposed to have done on 11 September? Do we have to prove it, and everyone on it, existed in the first place?

 

[jsfisher]

After May 5th 1945, the five continents of the world were no longer embroiled in war. Therefore it ceased to be a world war.

There are only five continents of the world?

 

[Totovader]

Absolutely not, you say that 175 hit the south tower. Show me any evidence that 175 took off.

This is an inadequate response. As I said- your "prove it took off" is a burden of proof fallacy. It's your claim, so it's your responsibility to prove it.

You seem to have completely ignored the post. Please read it again.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Why should I disprove that, of all the planes that were in the sky that morning, the one that hit tower 2 was 175.
You are the one that is saying 175 hit tower 2. Now prove it.

No KT, you opened the thread by claiming it was not UA Flight 175 that struck the tower. YOU backup YOUR claim.

I have begun to show that the plane that struck tower 2 could not have beed 175. Rather than duplicate replies, allow me to refer you to, what should be, my previous post.

Not does nothing to address what I have stated to be the appropriate jump off point; is there anything in the visual record that is inconsistent with UA Flight 175? Either show there are visual differences, or concede that there are no visual differences and we can move along to a different talking point.

 

[SOMERLED]

That's "Occam" or "Ockham". It means we should favour the hypothesis with the least assumptions. For example, you're assuming a great deal when explaining your position.



That's irrelevant. If a pilot can fly a plane in clouds, then another pilot can.



There is no silent alarm. From the moment the terrorists enter the cockpit, there is noting the pilots can do. This has been explained to you in the past. I can only surmise that you didn't read the answers or ignored them: Pre-9/11, the policy was to cooperate with hijackers, because no one ever thought they'd fly civilian planes into buildings.



How ? All you've been doing is speculating from the onset.



Talk about moving the goalposts. If you use that definition, then there was never a world war.



Please research the term "burden of proof". You're the claimant.

Why am I the claimant? I'm not claiming anything.
I say 175 didn't hit the south tower because someone first claimed that it did.
I say it couldn't have been 175 because 175 had a plastic nose and tin wings.
I say how can wings that can't stand up to a bird in flight, a big bird true enough. But nevertheless a bird. I ask how can wings that couldn't hold up againgst a bird, possibly cut through steel?
I have produced evidence that a civilian wing can't hold up againgst a bird.
Here it is again,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l38oEJwAb1Q&mode=related&search=
Will you now produce some eidence to the contrary, otherwise I can do no other than proceed with the evidence I have.
I have further produced evidence that it could not have been 175 that hit the south tower, because the photographic evidence says so.
Here that is also,
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/dud.html
Will you now produce some evidence to the contrary, otherwise I can do no other than proceed with the evidence I have.
If a picture paints a thousand words, why can't you paint one?

 

[SOMERLED]

I believe all your questions are answered by our friend Newton. Force = Mass times Acceleration. It was a big plane going very fast. A fact that thousands of engineers and physicists have no difficulty understanding.

Also, you're shifting the burden of proof. Do you honestly expect the forum to prove that 175 did every tiny thing that it's supposed to have done on 11 September? Do we have to prove it, and everyone on it, existed in the first place?

Not at all, just show me any evidence that the plane that hit the south tower was 175.
In the meantime, let me refer you my post 1177.

 

[SOMERLED]

There are only five continents of the world?

In the world I live in.

 

[SOMERLED]

No KT, you opened the thread by claiming it was not UA Flight 175 that struck the tower. YOU backup YOUR claim.

Not does nothing to address what I have stated to be the appropriate jump off point; is there anything in the visual record that is inconsistent with UA Flight 175? Either show there are visual differences, or concede that there are no visual differences and we can move along to a different talking point.

Do you dismiss post 1177 in its entirety?

 

[pomeroo]

In the world I live in.

Perhaps, but Earth has seven continents.

World War II ended with Japan's surrender.

The super-villain "Rothschilde" [sic] is imaginary.

There is no evidence for the existence of armored Boeing 767s and 757s.

A tornado is capable of generating sufficient force to spear a tree with a piece of straw.

Grammarians distinguish between transitive and intransitive verbs.

Four of the hijackers possessed the piloting skills to fly planes into buildings.

 

[CptColumbo]

In the world I live in.

That is not very surprising, and very telling of you analytic ability.

 

[CptColumbo]

Perhaps, but Earth has seven continents.

It depends on your feelings towards Eurasia, and if you want to insult Austrailians (which I would never do).

 

[A W Smith]

Millions of people saw A plane hit the south tower. 175 was a civilian aircraft, how could it's wings cut through corrugated steel that was strong enough to hold a concrete floor in place.
If you have a steel wall, reinforced by a concrete floor resting on steel joists, connected at the other end to massive steel columns. How is a fold of aluminium going to make a dent in that. It isn't going to do anything other than drop to the ground like a thrown aaway piece of paper?
If it can't stand up to a bird in flight, how can it cut through the above structure?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l38oEJwAb1Q&mode=related&search=
Here's someone else who thinks as I do,
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/dud.html

Yours is an argument of incredulity. You have no grasp of physics at all. The velocity of the colliding object is all that matters. using your logic, then this industrial tool could not possibly work and is but a conspiracy to sell unworkable machinery.

http://www.flowcorp.com/waterjet-applications.cfm?id=108

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Do you dismiss post 1177 in its entirety?

Post #1177 is putting the cart before the horse. It is quite simple really; either the visual evidence is consistent with that of a UA 757, or it is not. If it is not, please demonstrate why it is not. If it is, then concede that the visual record is consistent with a UA 757 flight. Then we can move on to the next talking point.