[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[SOMERLED]

No, because of the overwhelming evidence that show that 175 hit the WTC. Your would have to prove that not only was that plane in the sky (I hope you would provide as much evidence for that as you are asking us for to prove that 175 had taken off), but that it was in the area. Futhermore, you would have to prove that it was painted to look like a UA plane, since that is the plane in the photos and identified by eyewitnesses. Remember that evidence is required to prove probable cause, so far you've produced none.

Here's an analogy for you.
Three guys are standing in the middle of a basketball court, during halftime to an NBA game. They are part of the cleaning crew and are just dry mopping the court. One is wearing a hat with the team logo on it, one is wearing a bandana, and the third is wearing a hat with the local baseball teams logo on it. Suddenly, the guy with the baseball hat shoots the other guy with the hat in the head, using a 9mm hidden in his coveralls. Not all the spectators were paying attention, but some saw the first shot. Since it was halftime the feed from the cameras were not live and the cameras were not pointed at the location of the killing. Everyone is now watching the middle of the court, and the Technical Director of the game instructs his camera crew to get a shot of the action for the news division of the network. Before security has time to react, the gunman then shoots the guy with the bandana, in the chest. Almost all the spectators, numbering in the thousands, saw this. The shooter then turns the gun on himself, placing the gun in his mouth and pulls the trigger. The back of his head explodes in a shower of blood and brains.

In David Simon's book Homicide: a Year on the Killing Streets this would be regarded as a "dunker" (short for "slam dunk case"), an obvious suspect and plenty of witnesses. However, Will Peterson and his crew (CSI, for those who are unfamiliar with American TV) arrive, and still have to map out what happened at the scene and collect forensic evidence. The coroner does an autopsy, to determine cause of death. Detectives look into the backgrounds of the victims and shooter, to find a possible motive. Bullets are found in the two victims, along the track of the wounds. Unfortunately, the bullet that killed the shooter can't be found. It traveled (according to witnesses and video playback) at an upward angle, most likely going into the rafters of the building, and may have struck one of the steel supports above it been spent and fell to the ground. Thus probably lost in the crowd as it left the building. According to the coroner, all three died of gunshot wounds. According to the forensics team, the guy in the baseball hat was the shooter. According to the detectives, there was bad blood between the shooter and the victims. Apparently, the guy in the basketball hat was sleeping with the baseball hat wearer's wife, and the guy in the bandana knew this was going on for sometime and didn't tell baseball hat. Two days before there had been an altercation between the men in the locker room. The case is closed.

However, soon after all the findings are published in the newspaper, a dentist finds some unanswered questions. Why did the bullet go through the shooter's head and not the first victim's head? Why was the fact that the second victim had a pacemaker never made public? Why was the third bullet never found? The explanation to him and others he enlists is obvious. A vast conspiracy on the part of professional sports to raise ticket prices.

The dentist, refered to as a "Doctor" by his supporters, explains that only explosives placed within the logo of the hat of the first victim can explain the wound not being a through-and-through. He finds an explosive expert who tells him the "yeah an explosive could cause a wound like that..." Leaving out the rest of the statement, "but to propel the bullet into the skull would require an explosive package size that would be noticeable to the victim and the people around him." He also shows that an explosive could be placed in the pacemaker of the second victim, without doing research into when the victim's last operation was. "Isn't it obvious that the absense of the third bullet is proof that an explosive charge was placed in the man's head." Also, some of the eyewitnesses (including off-duty cops, and soldiers on leave) described some of the "gunshots" as "sounding like small explosions." There is no other possible explanation.

Further, who benefitted? Since the event all major league sports have raised their ticket prices, to pay for extra security.

Why hasn't the investigation been reopened? The sport teams have the city and state officials in their pocket.

Finally, isn't it suspicious that the suspect was identified so quickly? Obviously a patsy.

It would have to be a future Noam Chomsky, since the current one doesn't associate with any members of the "Truth" Movement.

You mention 'overwhelming' evidence that 175 was the plane that hit tower 2.
So far I have seen none. Would you kindly produce some?

 

[SOMERLED]

How do you define "embroiled in war"? It seems as if you believe that, because the fighting in Europe had ended, they were no longer "embroiled". But if a simple lack of fighting on that piece of land is sufficient, then, at least, North America was never (or at least, almost never) embroiled in war.

Thus, by this definition, WW2 was never a "world war".

The only way you could argue it is a "world war" is if it is sufficient for some forces of the various powers to be fighting somewhere, so that the Canadian and US forces fighting overseas count towards NA being "embroiled". But, by that criteria, it was still a world war after the Nazi surrender, as there were still some European forces involved in the fight against Japan.

So, still a "world war", or never a "world war"? Becasue I can't see how you can claim something else without being inconsistent.

You statement with regard to North America is simply not correct. For example, there was the interesting attacks launched from Japan upon the US mainland, by an ingenious use of the jet stream. Then of course, you have U boats.

 

[SOMERLED]

Wrong on multiple counts.

Even ignoring you that are bucking the most common convention of seven continents, this whole "world war requires..." is yet another invention by you.

Even ignoring the above, after May 1945, the continuing conflict still involved countries from all of the continents (by any accepted convention for identifying them) except for Antarctica.

So, since all inhabited continents (be it 3, 4, 5, or 6) were still embroiled in war, it would still be a world war, even by your definition.



Wrong again.

The May 5 instrument of surrender was for all German armed forces in Holland, northwest Germany, and in Denmark to Field Marshal Montgomery. The document was completely superseded by the May 7 instrument of surrender for all German forces to General Eisenhower.

Although that final surrender document was signed May 7, 1945, it was not until the following day, May 8, that the Northern German Army, itself, actually surrendered to the Allied Forces.



Sounds like the basis of a conspiracy theory to me.

Very good, however,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ht33.html
http://www.wargamer.com/ww2timeline/1945western.asp
Italy had long since surrendered.
Von Kleist surrendered to the Third Army on the 4th.
Jodl surrendered to Russia on the 7th.
The Channel Islands, St Nazaire and La Rochelle didn't officialy surrender until the 9th.
However, as I have already stated a collection of surrenders were involved.
The guns fell silent and all hostilities ceased by 3pm on May 5th.
Ergo, WW2 ended on May 5th.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Thank you for that,
Would you care to comment on,

extension in mm = constant
force in Newtons

I will do no such thing until you address the basic evidence of the visual record and either show that it is not consistent with UA Flight 175, or concede that the visual record shows no discrepancies.

You mention 'overwhelming' evidence that 175 was the plane that hit tower 2.
So far I have seen none. Would you kindly produce some?

Stop trying to shift the burden of proof

You statement with regard to North America is simply not correct. For example, there was the interesting attacks launched from Japan upon the US mainland, by an ingenious use of the jet stream. Then of course, you have U boats.

This is not relevant to the discussion of UA Flight 175, nor to 9/11 as a whole. If you wish to discuss WWII I highly suggest you do so in a different thread.

 

[SOMERLED]

Not by me.

So the fact that the "analysis" is hoplessly flawed doesn't matter to you? You are going to keep citing it even though it is demonstrably incorrect?

Just show me some - ANY - evidence that 175 hit tower 2.

 

[CptColumbo]

You mention 'overwhelming' evidence that 175 was the plane that hit tower 2.
So far I have seen none. Would you kindly produce some?

Just show me some - ANY - evidence that 175 hit tower 2.

And this instantly became Christophera II.

The evidence has been shown to you earlier in the thread, but you've chosen to ignore it.

You've made the statement that 175 did not hit WTC2, yet you've failed to produce any evidence outside of conjecture and suspicion. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[A W Smith]

Just show me some - ANY - evidence that 175 hit tower 2.

http://www.legacy.com/Sept11/SearchResult.aspx?location=UA175

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Just show me some - ANY - evidence that 175 hit tower 2.

Please stop trying to shift the burden of proof. Spitfire did not make a claim in the OP of this thread, you did.

 

[SOMERLED]

There is nothing the least bit remarkable about the ATC tapes being used in the investigation. ATC communications and radar data are routinely recorded for the specific purpose of helping to reconstruct the sequence of events leading up to a crash. On such a disastrous day as 9/11/01 it would be an absolute no-brainer for the people who service the recording gear to set the recordings aside for investigators immediately.

Where I work we have surveillance cameras set up to cover the entrances, parking lots, reception area and the lockers where portable items of value are kept. The time-lapse VCR tapes that record the outputs of these cameras are used in a rotating sequence- when tape 1 is filled it's replaced with tape 2 and so on until the whole set is filled, at which point tape 1 is reused and recorded over. However, if we came to work one morning and found a dead body in the parking lot, the tape that was in the machine at the time would immediately be ejected and set aside for the police.

That's just simple good sense operation of a logging system for its intended purpose.

But that's not the point, is it? Isn't your real point to try to justify yourself in ignoring all evidence that contradicts your unsupported claims, by insinuating that it must be faked and that the realevidence must have been destroyed by the eevil, eevil gummint?

Can you give me a reasonable explanation as to why so many tapes and vids are still under lock and key. Also, why a flight controll officer should gather up and destroy tapes. Also, why the atc's at Cleveland were replaced by people from 'out of town' on the morning of 9/11.
All these inconsistencies you dismiss out of hand, why do you do that?
Do you noy find any of these things the slightest bit suspicious, or is it a case of,
"There's none as numb as those that want to be".
In other words, you refuse to acknowledge any suspicious event with regard to 9/11, unless it agrees with the OCT. Is that your position?

 

[SOMERLED]

No, I'm saying that the example you were using, to prove that a something going 500mph couldn't penetrate the side of the WTC, was a flawed one. Like many of your other ideas.

So anything going at 500 mph will penetrate corrugated steel, is that what you are saying?

 

[apathoid]

Please stop trying to jump ahead. I've been asking you to do something very simple; either show that the visual record of the aircraft that struck the tower is inconsistent with UA Flight 175, or concede that it is visually the same.

I agree and I'd just like to suggest that malcolm drop by the jetphotos.net and/or airliners.net fora, or even pprune and ask the resident planespotters/pilots/airline people what hit the South Tower. If he can find a single one that insists that the plane isn't a UA 767-200 - then his claims might have merit. What do you think, mal? How does presenting your evidence to plane geeks sound?

BTW, malcolm, I'm somewhat of an expert planespotter myself, and in my somewhat expert opinion on the matter - the aircraft was indeed a 767-200 in UA's "Stealth" paint scheme. And if you doubt my aviation geek cred, feel free to quiz me on airliner identification. You can even use thumbnail size pics and I'll be able to give you type(ie 757), subtype/variant(ie -200PF) and airline(ie UPS).

Could it have been a "military bad boy" painted up in UA's colors. Certainly. Are military tankers(KC 767's for example) made of materials different than that of their civilian couterparts - steel for instance? No, they are not. They may be strengthened in some areas, to accommodate increased landing weights, but they are by and large the same airplanes. And since steel is around 3X heavier than aluminum per unit of volume, a 767 made from steel would weigh close to 500 tons at takeoff and would need at least 2 more of the same powerplants to get it in the air, or much more powerful engines. But, I only see two engines of standard size/nacelle shape for a Pratt & Whitney JT9D powered 767.

 

[SOMERLED]

So, let's reset. Original claim
First step to substantiating, or falsifying this, is to examine the evidence available of the impact on the tower and see if the visual record and debris is consistent with that of UA Flight 175.

How about the first step being to get 175 from Logan to Manhattan, via a hijack, has that been forgotten? Because so far, no one has remotely come close to putting up a viable scenario, not even remotely.

 

[pomeroo]

Very good, however,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ht33.html
http://www.wargamer.com/ww2timeline/1945western.asp
Italy had long since surrendered.
Von Kleist surrendered to the Third Army on the 4th.
Jodl surrendered to Russia on the 7th.
The Channel Islands, St Nazaire and La Rochelle didn't officialy surrender until the 9th.
However, as I have already stated a collection of surrenders were involved.
The guns fell silent and all hostilities ceased by 3pm on May 5th.
Ergo, WW2 ended on May 5th.

World War II pitted the Allies (a large group of countries led by The United States, Great Britain, and Russia) against the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan).

The war ended when Japan surrendered. Please reread my brief discussion of solipsism.

You are contending, if I understand correctly, that you and you alone determine the parameters of reality. The FACT that World War II is a historic event with commonly accepted parameters is of no consequence. YOU have decided that henceforth the date of the war's end will coincide with the surrender of German armies in Europe.

Do you truly regard yourself as the sole independent reality?

 

[SOMERLED]

I will do no such thing until you address the basic evidence of the visual record and either show that it is not consistent with UA Flight 175, or concede that the visual record shows no discrepancies.


Stop trying to shift the burden of proof

This is not relevant to the discussion of UA Flight 175, nor to 9/11 as a whole. If you wish to discuss WWII I highly suggest you do so in a different thread.

You asked me to consider physics, when I do so, you rear up.
You ask me to produce evidence, I produced visual evidence, here it is again.
The fusilage from the leading edge of the wing to the nose is too long for 175.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U_GISl3aAA
What evidence can you produce to show that 175 did hit the south tower?
I'm not fussy, anything reasonable will do.

 

[SOMERLED]

Basically, it's the opposite of what you've been doing, here. Instead of just claiming something, one should present evidence that his claims are true.

As for the definition of evidence, I'd just say that it's any objective piece of data that points to the truth value of a claim. By objective, I mean that gut feelings and the like are not acceptable in most cases.



That's a very good example of what evidence is NOT.



That is nonsensical. Millions of people saw the plane hit the south tower. Thousands of which were ON SITE. In order for that plane NOT to be 175, you'd have to present evidence that contradicts that which we have.

As for "suspicion" that it did not, that is still not evidence. What you are saying, basically, is that you don't trust the official account. Well, that's just too bad.



Unfortunately for you, and fortunarely for reality and our justice system, that's not how it works.



Somehow I doubt you will. I think your "evidence" will amount to you saying that it wasn't 100% sure to succeed, and therefore didn't happen. I guess D-Day was a hoax, too.

D Day was indeed presented to the Germans as a hoax. Hoax's, false flag operations etc are things that governments are well versed in. They usually use them to start wars. Would you like some examples?

 

[pomeroo]

Just show me some - ANY - evidence that 175 hit tower 2.

Let's see, now: the remains of the passengers identified by forensic pathologists don't constitute "real" evidence because all forensic specialists work for "Rothschilde [sic]/ Rockefeller."

The fragments of Flight 175 can dismissed by the same process--anyone who identified them necessarily works for the super-villain/s.

The disappearance of Flight 175--a commercial airliner took off and vanished--is not a problem a fantasist need concern himself with.

Your fabrication regarding armored Boeing 767s having been exposed as a falsehood does nothing to damage your speculations.

Tell us, Malcolm, is there any evidence that you wouldn't simply define out of existence? You are, after all, the ultimate arbiter of what is real and what isn't, right?

 

[Totovader]

Just show me some - ANY - evidence that 175 hit tower 2.

Say it one more time, maybe the rules of logic will suddenly change and this will no longer be a burden of proof fallacy...

Just give it one more shot... as an experiment...

 

[SOMERLED]

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.



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!)

Allow me to refresh your memory.
1.
Raytheon, in Aug 2001, flew a passenger jet, take off – flight around – landing. (Der Spiegel).
2.
Raytheon deal in small executive jets, there is no reason for them to fly large passenger planes by remote control.
3.
There is a very good reason for Raytheon not to interest themselves in flying passenger planes by remote control, because it is against the law.
4.
The law requires that the passengers on any flight, have the flight crew present themselves to the passengers, by standing by the entrance door. This is to reassure the passengers, that the crew are not hung over or worse.
5.
No flight crew by the door = no flight.
6.
Raytheon could have no legitimate reason, for flying a large passenger plane by remote control.
7.
Offutt AFB, is a joint civilian/military installation.
8.
Boeing and Raytheon were there.
9.
Boeing has been the subject of RICO law suits for over a decade.
10.
The military prefer daylight take offs.
11.
Any commander of an Air Force Base who closed his airport for ‘civilian’ reasons during massive war games, would face disciplinary action.
12.
For the first time in history, a civilian politician was placed in direct command of Norad and other parts of the USAF.
13.
In order to get a night-time take off from a military airfield, some compelling reason must be given.
14.
Private civilian executive jets began arriving at dawn on 9/11, because of a celebrity golf tournament that day.
15.
Warren Buffet was persuaded out of retirement to host one last celebrity golf tournament.
16.
Neocons are involved in paedophilia.
17.
Offut AFB is twenty minutes away from Boystown, Omaha.
18.
Boystown is steeped in allegations of paedophilia.
19.
Things occurred (criminal convictions) in the Twin Towers apartment block in Omaha, which is midway between the executive jet landing at Offutt and Boystown, ten minutes from either location.
20.
So many planes or non-planes were in the sky that morning, that air traffic controllers didn’t know a real plane from a blip on their screen.
21.
Air traffic controllers deal only with planes that are about to land in their area.
22.
All take offs from Offutt, for both Northern Vigilance, Vigilant warrior and any other reason, would have to be during the night of 9/10 – 9/11.

 

[Corsair 115]

Should I presume at this point that we are never to return to settling the navigation issue?

 

[SOMERLED]

I will do no such thing until you address the basic evidence of the visual record and either show that it is not consistent with UA Flight 175, or concede that the visual record shows no discrepancies.


Stop trying to shift the burden of proof

This is not relevant to the discussion of UA Flight 175, nor to 9/11 as a whole. If you wish to discuss WWII I highly suggest you do so in a different thread.

I have addressed the visual record, here it is again,
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/dud.html
This is clear visual evidence that the plane was not 175.
Now kindly show me some visual evidence to the contrary.