Flight 175 plane speed challenged

[ZENSMACK89]

The real question is "what's the point of this charade"? Would not Flight 175 have made a perfectly serviceable missile? What do you imagine the conversation was among the conspiracists who hatched this plot?

No the real question that you keep avoiding is how was flight 175 proven to be the plane that hit the tower or that it could reach the speeds claimed and still be controlled by an amateur pilot?

Still nothing but nonsense?

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Why is there an if in there?

Did flight 175 hit WTC 2 yes or no?

I don't know I haven't seen any proof. Got any?

 

[stateofgrace]

I don't know I haven't seen any proof. Got any?

I rest my case.

 

[gumboot]

Let me put it to you this way genius. People are sometimes found innocent of murder. Does that mean the person they were accused of killing is not dead? If the person accused is proven innocent does that mean they know who did it?

Much as I think zensmack89 is completely and utterly wrong, he has a good point here, which I agree with.

You do not require an alternative explanation to refute an existing explanation. For example I can refute the claims that a missile hit the Pentagon without providing an explanation of what did hit the Pentagon.

Let's focus on the evidence that UA175 did hit WTC2, rather than demanding an alternative explanation from zensmack89.

I'd like to list some of the primary evidence which identifies UA175 as the aircraft that hit WTC2:

Witness report of FAA ATCs
Witness report of UA175 employees
ATC radar data
ATC radio communications
Passenger and crew telephone calls
Al Qaeda members located on plane
Matching MO to other flights with additional evidence
Eye witness reports from those who saw final moments of flight and impact
Video footage of final moments of flight and impact
Photographs of final moments of flight and impact
Confirmation from United Airlines
Aircraft debris at WTC2
Personal items and remains from passengers recovered from WTC debris

None of these things, individually, proves that UA175 hit WTC2. Taken collectively, the evidence is irrefutable.

-Gumboot

 

[ZENSMACK89]

No, you're the idiot that says flight 175 didn't hit the tower.

I didn't pose that idiotic question you did

 

[gumboot]

that it could reach the speeds claimed and still be controlled by an amateur pilot?

Why do you think a Boeing 767 could not be controlled by an amateur pilot at 590 MPH?

-Gumboot

 

[Bell]

I didn't pose that idiotic question you did

Where did I say that you posted that question?

And what is so idiotic about asking you what hit the South Tower?

 

[maxpower1227]

Much as I think zensmack89 is completely and utterly wrong, he has a good point here, which I agree with.

You do not require an alternative explanation to refute an existing explanation. For example I can refute the claims that a missile hit the Pentagon without providing an explanation of what did hit the Pentagon.

Let's focus on the evidence that UA175 did hit WTC2, rather than demanding an alternative explanation from zensmack89.

I'd like to list some of the primary evidence which identifies UA175 as the aircraft that hit WTC2:

Witness report of FAA ATCs
Witness report of UA175 employees
ATC radar data
ATC radio communications
Passenger and crew telephone calls
Al Qaeda members located on plane
Matching MO to other flights with additional evidence
Eye witness reports from those who saw final moments of flight and impact
Video footage of final moments of flight and impact
Photographs of final moments of flight and impact
Confirmation from United Airlines
Aircraft debris at WTC2
Personal items and remains from passengers recovered from WTC debris

None of these things, individually, proves that UA175 hit WTC2. Taken collectively, the evidence is irrefutable.

-Gumboot

This is a very valid point. But while we can't technically disprove him by pointing out his lack of a coherent alternate explanation, we can demand to know why his explanation is more rational than the prevailing belief. Zensmack prefers to scoff at our lack of indisputable proof as being proof that no 175 hit the tower - that way, he doesn't have to produce any evidence of his own. Sane people prefer to say that while the evidence on our side isn't 100% indisputable, it's more than NO evidence, which is what Zen has.

I hate to bring up this analogy again, but it's just like an evolution-vs-young earth creationism debate. The YEC'er can't produce any scientific evidence to back up their claim, so they choose instead to look for any hole in the prevailing scientific theory that they can, and when they think they find one hole in a mountain of evidence, they claim that their side must be right.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

ZENSMACK89,

Will you acknowledge that the individual you claim to be a "Boeing expert" is not any such thing?

 

[fitzgibbon]

No the real question that you keep avoiding is how was flight 175 proven to be the plane that hit the tower or that it could reach the speeds claimed and still be controlled by an amateur pilot?

Process of elimination. Really quite simple actually. Even for a 'genus' such as yourself.

 

[Mercutio]

No. You're a very special kind of 'idiot' who's been asked repeatedly what he thinks hit the tower as he seems clearly incapable of believing it was UAL175. Yet the best you can come up with is "Something" and "Somewhere" as to what did hit it and where the 'real' UAL175 might be.

Actually... it is worse than that. "Something" and "somewhere" would be more honest, as they would not technically exclude flight 175 and the tower. It was "something else" and "somewhere else", which implies, dishonestly, that somehow flight 175 and the tower are disconfirmed. If zensmack were being honest, he would have to admit that (absense of evidence is not evidence of absence) he has no proof at all that 175 did not hit the tower. Logically, for him to include the "else", the burden of proof is indeed his; he needs to eliminate the possibility that, even though he claims that there is no proof that indicates 175 hit the tower, it did nevertheless.

The "else" is intellectually dishonest. But this comes as no surprise.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Mea culpa. Thanks for the correction Mercutio. Strangely enough, zen's gone silent suddenly. Must be bath time.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Much as I think zensmack89 is completely and utterly wrong, he has a good point here, which I agree with.

You do not require an alternative explanation to refute an existing explanation. For example I can refute the claims that a missile hit the Pentagon without providing an explanation of what did hit the Pentagon.

Thank You but I think most of them know this they just don't have anything else.

Let's focus on the evidence that UA175 did hit WTC2, rather than demanding an alternative explanation from zensmack89.

Lets.

I'd like to list some of the primary evidence which identifies UA175 as the aircraft that hit WTC2:

Witness report of FAA ATCs

I'm not saying they didn't track something they believed to be flight 175.

Witness report of UA175 employees

Don't know what you mean by that. If you mean video it's not proof.

ATC radar data

No original transpoder code so not proof.

ATC radio communications

Doesn't mean they were in contact with what hit the tower.

Passenger and crew telephone calls

Doesn't mean they were calling from what hit the tower.

Al Qaeda members located on plane

On which object with which transponder code? No DNA was done of hijackers at the towers and just process of elimination of DNA at the pentagon.

Matching MO to other flights with additional evidence

Not sure what you mean by that.

Eye witness reports from those who saw final moments of flight and impact

Eyewitness that the tower appeared to be hit by something but not proof it was flight 175.

Video footage of final moments of flight and impact

Video that the tower appeared to be hit by something but not proof it was flight 175.

Photographs of final moments of flight and impact
Confirmation from United Airlines

Photographs that the tower appeared to be hit by something but not proof it was flight 175.

Aircraft debris at WTC2

Serial numbers?

Personal items and remains from passengers recovered from WTC debris

This is the best offered up evidence but but falls short of being positive proof given the fact that if flight 175 was disposed of so were the passengers and personal items. Only 12 DNA remains were said to be found from flight 175 at ground zero. This would not be hard to accomplish after the fact.

None of these things, individually, proves that UA175 hit WTC2. Taken collectively, the evidence is irrefutable.

Irrefutable? No. Circumstantial at best. In fact there is supposedly a video confession of UBL claiming responsibility for 9/11. Still it is not enough to secure an indictment. It's not hard evidence according to the FBI.

 

[Mercutio]

This is the best offered up evidence but but falls short of being positive proof given the fact that if flight 175 was disposed of so were the passengers and personal items. Only 12 DNA remains were said to be found from flight 175 at ground zero. This would not be hard to accomplish after the fact.

Pray tell...How? Please give a reasonable scenario by which 12 sets of DNA remains get from "somewhere else" to GZ.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Pray tell...How? Please give a reasonable scenario by which 12 sets of DNA remains get from "somewhere else" to GZ.

Did they test the DNA and identify personal items right there at ground zero?

 

[Mercutio]

Did they test the DNA and identify personal items right there at ground zero?

Please give a full answer. Where did they obtain the samples? Obviously, someone knows where "somewhere else" is. How many people have to be in on it for your "not hard to accomplish" scenario to work? Remember, you will have to dissappear the samples actually taken at GZ, and substitute ones taken "somewhere else"--is this done by the same person who obtains there "somewhere else"? Are the people gathering data at GZ in on it, or innocent dupes?

You say it is "not hard to accomplish". Please, provide details. I do not think you can. I think you know this.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Please give a full answer. Where did they obtain the samples? Obviously, someone knows where "somewhere else" is. How many people have to be in on it for your "not hard to accomplish" scenario to work? Remember, you will have to dissappear the samples actually taken at GZ, and substitute ones taken "somewhere else"--is this done by the same person who obtains there "somewhere else"? Are the people gathering data at GZ in on it, or innocent dupes?

You say it is "not hard to accomplish". Please, provide details. I do not think you can. I think you know this.

No you provide proof that this some how this identifies flight 175. Your official CT has not been proven just asserted. Not providing all the details of how something might have been done does not prove your CT true.

 

[Mercutio]

No you provide proof that this some how this identifies flight 175. Your official CT has not been proven just asserted. Not providing all the details of how something might have been done does not prove your CT true.

It does not prove the official story true. It merely establishes that it is by far the simplest explanation, fitting the available evidence. As a scientist, I am comfortable with a level of uncertainty, and comparing theories based not on absolutes, but probabilities. The official story is, quite simply, the only one I have seen that does not multiply improbabilities beyond rational belief.

Your backpedalling from "not hard to accomplish" to refusal to provide details is pretty damning here. The plain truth is that what you are suggesting would actually be incredibly difficult to accomplish, requiring the participation of, at a bare minimum, scores of individuals, if not hundreds. Your "not hard to accomplish" scenario requires an additional plane (thus, the many people required to do this are all not wondering what happened to the plane they worked on), the disposal of 175 (but not before extracting at least 12 sets of physical remains--unless you wish to suggest that this was removed prior to takeoff, or somehow parachuted out in midflight), the willing or unknowing participation of investigators at GZ and Fresh Kills (with reduntant procedures that would eliminate the possibility that a single rogue investigator could possibly accomplish what you suggest), some mystery entity charged with transporting (at a minimum--perhaps the extraction as well) at least 12 sets of human remains to appropriate locations, under the eye of the firefighters and others at GZ.

Let me be the first to admit that this does not, at all, prove the official story correct. Proof is for logic and math; this is the real world. All this does is relabel your "not hard to accomplish" as what it actually is--a blatant and insulting lie.

And I have no doubt at all by now that you realize this.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Far more evidence has been provided against your theory than for it. Your moronic charade is growing tiresome.

Not really. What's tiresome is your dodging.

Seriously, have you looked into Scientology? You seem like a perfect candidate.

Seriously do you have anything to offer on a factual level?

 

[maxpower1227]

Not really. What's tiresome is your dodging.



Seriously do you have anything to offer on a factual level?

I think my irony meter just exploded.

What am I dodging exactly? Before you answer, keep in mind that I agree that we don't have 100% completely irrefutable and indisputable proof that Flight 175 hit WTC2. I merely pointed out that given the evidence at our disposal, it's easily the most plausible and rational belief to hold. You've provided nothing to change that - just a bunch of endlessly-repeated retorts.