Flight 175 plane speed challenged

[gumboot]

Will you answer my question though


Who at Indianapolis thought it was a military plane?


You keep repeating O'Brien, he worked at Dulles.


O'Brien didn't know it was Flight 77 because he stopped tracking it once he gave it to Indianapolis.

[nitpick] Danielle O'Brien was a female[/nitpick]

-Gumboot

 

[ZENSMACK89]

You need to read more carefully. In the specific instance of UA175, switching flights was impossible. This is because it was being tracked both on primary and secondary radar. Any other aircraft in the same location that had no transponder and then suddenly activated one not matching any flight profile would have immediately been noticed. This is a very simple idea to understand. I can't accept that you don't understand it. Therefore you must be purposefully ignoring it.

American Airlines knew the moment AA11 crashed that it was the aircraft that hit the WTC. It is standard practice in the event of an incident for an airline to go into "lock down" where by all information about the flight is held. This is done primarily to protect the identity of passengers and crew.

American Airlines went into lock down after AA11 crashed. It was several hours before they confirmed to the FAA that AA11 had crashed. However they internally knew it had crashed the moment it hit WTC1.

For whatever reason, United Airlines decided not to go into lock down for UA175, and instead notified the FAA immediately.

-Gumboot

What you sate above aren't facts these are opinions and assertions. If the record shows anything about 9/11 it's complete and utter confusion period.

Time for bed.

Later

 

[gumboot]

What you sate above aren't facts these are opinions and assertions. If the record shows anything about 9/11 it's complete and utter confusion period.

Time for bed.

Later

You don't know what you're talking about. The above are not opinions or assertions. They are widely known facts. Your refusal to accept them says more about you than it does about the real world.

Have a good sleep.

-Gumboot

 

[NYCEMT86]

About Flight 77

Off the Screen

Until six minutes before the second airliner hit the World Trade Center, Flight 77 appeared to air traffic controllers in the FAA's Washington Air Route Traffic Center in Leesburg, Va., to be just another flight they were routinely tracking. When the Boeing 757 reached central West Virginia, it was routinely "handed off" by Leesburg to the next air traffic control center, outside Indianapolis.

Flight 77 continued west, appearing on the radar screens with a data block identifying the airline, flight number, altitude and type of plane - information from the plane's transponders, which are signal transmitting devices. The plane inched across the screen, the radar updating every 12 seconds.

Then Flight 77 began to turn slightly - and abruptly disappeared from the radar screens. Suddenly there was no transponder signal.

Federal officials say the terrorists apparently shut down the transponders in all four hijacked airliners as they took control. The air traffic controllers didn't know it, but Flight 77 was making a U-turn and heading east.

Normally, when an aircraft's transponder cuts off, the plane is still visible as what's called a "primary target" or "skinpaint" - a target the radar is picking up but can't identify. The controllers in Indianapolis kept watching for Flight 77 to appear over Kentucky, Ohio or Indiana - but they weren't looking for it to reappear far to the east, over West Virginia where the plane had come from, sources said.

Back in Leesburg, air traffic controllers knew at about 9:05 a.m. that they had a new eastbound plane on their radar, but they didn't know it was Flight 77. The aircraft had entered their airspace with no radio contact and no transponder identification.

During the confusion, rumors circulated that Flight 77 might have exploded in midair. It wasn't until 9:24 a.m. that the FAA alerted the military that the plane was heading for Washington.

http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/nd923.htm


Flight 175

http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/air-traffic-controllers-recall-events.txt


read it, its an interview with two of the air traffic controllers.

 

[NYCEMT86]

[nitpick] Danielle O'Brien was a female[/nitpick]

-Gumboot

Corrected

 

[gumboot]

Corrected

I should also point out that not only was Danielle O'Brien a female, as I asserted, but as far as I know she is still a she.

-Gumboot

 

[Reheat]

During the confusion, rumors circulated that Flight 77 might have exploded in midair. It wasn't until 9:24 a.m. that the FAA alerted the military that the plane was heading for Washington.

http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/nd923.htm

That's a troofer site you've referenced and the 9:24 notification was an early error in the timeline. It was determined that NEADS was actually notified about 2 minutes before 77 hit the Pentagon. This has all been verified in the NORAD tapes, as well.

NEADS launched the Langley fighters based upon the reported "Phantom" AA11 not AA77. That's why NEADS intended the Langley fighters to go toward Baltimore rather than to DC.

 

[CurtC]

Guys, isn't it obvious by now that there's no amount of evidence that Zen will acknowledge as being evidence? If we actually handed him recovered parts of the airliner and manufacturing/maintenance logbooks showing the serial numbers on them correspond to the plane that was flight 175, he would just dismiss that as faked.

So unless you have some evidence that is even more solid than that, there is no way Zen will acknowledge that he's lost this debate. Please just give it up. Everyone who has stumbled into this thread can see exactly what kind of person we're dealing with.

 

[uruk]

That's not known for sure with a changing code and a screen full of planes.

A radar tracks a reflected microwave signal. The transponder tramsmitts an ID code.(plus altitude info in some cases) Changing or shutting off the transponder code does not make the blip dissappear on the primary radar.

If the all the other planes are transmitting a transponder code, the blip with the changing or missing transponder code would be the aircraft in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_(aviation)

 

[NYCEMT86]

I should also point out that not only was Danielle O'Brien a female, as I asserted, but as far as I know she is still a she.

-Gumboot

I hope so , i work with an O'Brien and its a He, so thats why I referenced her as a he.

That's a troofer site you've referenced and the 9:24 notification was an early error in the timeline. It was determined that NEADS was actually notified about 2 minutes before 77 hit the Pentagon. This has all been verified in the NORAD tapes, as well.

NEADS launched the Langley fighters based upon the reported "Phantom" AA11 not AA77. That's why NEADS intended the Langley fighters to go toward Baltimore rather than to DC.

Oh I wasn't aware that it was a twoofer site. This is the first time I really had to debate the issue with Flight 77 and Flight 175, so my facts are pretty basic and plus anytime I try to search "Flight 77" or "Flight 175" on google/yahoo, its all twoofer sites.

 

[DavidJames]

Your replies constitute both misunderstanding of how theories are formulated and verified coupled with a considerable amount of rather curt responses where you act as if you were the judge and jury in a trial.

You are using what I like to call the "Kent Hovind School of Debate" in order to try and discredit claims without actually presenting evidence against them and I hope to illustrate how this works.

This technique takes advantage of the fact that any honest person will always understand there are margins for error in every event and that their own beliefs could be wrong. I, and many other people on this forum could produce lists and lists and lists of evidence which if it existed would provide a strong cause to either believe in a MIHOP or LIHOP theory or at least to re-examine the 'official story'. A debater using this tactic however will either not specify a particular piece of evidence they require or will specify something which is impossible. Kent Hovind's "You can't prove these fossils had kids" is analogous to "You can't prove the fires were this temperature".

This debate tactic primarily and most importantly works by undermining the debate structure. Instead of operating from a level playing field the opponent of the person using this tactic is thrust into the limelight and told 'you must prove your theories in order to reject ours' (While this is not explicit, it is implicit as I hope I can illustrate). The debater in this position is not actually looking to win any debate, they do not intend to make any points which contribute factual value any more than interesting anecdotes that may support a particular theory. Kent Hovind's "These planets spin backwards" is analogous to "WTC7 fell at freefall speed". Their purpose is soley to try and 'prove' to the audience that their opponent's theory is flawed.

In your case you systematically reject any evidence presented as 'not proof'. Of course it is not proof, because you have set the bar of proof so high that no evidence which exists can satisfy it. This is exactly the style Roxdog at LC uses to debate. However, you are not the arbiter of facts and the evidence presented is overwhelming. As responsible critical thinkers it is our job to take a balanced and measured view, to be aware of the amount of evidence that exists for each claim and to judge appropriately. This is not what you are doing here, you are challenging people to amass evidence for their side of a debate which is being done easily and then simply summarily dismissing this evidence as not good enough. You have totally failed to present any evidence of your own and while it is noted that you do not have to have a competing theory to show errors in an existing one you do have to provide evidence to contradict claims. You have done neither.

The best way of course to deal with someone who argues in this fashion is to challenge them to list evidence which can exist and would disprove their point and if they refuse to do so by ignoring them or at least not participating.

Can you provide me with such an example?

This is a well thought out, articulate and very accurate post describing CTists like Zen.

I'm sure it's not lost on anyone how he's dodged, yet again, a request for him to provide an example of evidence he would accept. I'm sure that doesn't surprise you. He refuses to make any claims or state anything of substance because he knows his "debate" technique is based on smoke not substance.

Well done e^n.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So it looks like the facts still show flight 175 hit the WTC. Is Zen still calling facts assertions and assumptions?

 

[Reheat]

A radar tracks a reflected rf signal. The transponder tramsmitts an ID code.(plus altitude info in some cases) Changing the transponder code does not make the blip dissappear on the primary radar.

If the all the other planes are transmitting a transponder code, the blip with the changing or missing transponder code would be the aircraft in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_(aviation)

Not only that, but the ARTCC's take film of the radar and I'm sure they've reviewed it dozens of times to confirm what they were seeing with 20/20 hindsight. Perhaps when Cheap Shot comes along he can comment on this as I don't believe a record of their review is posted online anywhere.

Also, the service (who's name I don't recall) has records of the flight path of UA175, as well. That might even be available even now, but I'm sure Zen Smack isn't interested.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

If the all the other planes are transmitting a transponder code, the blip with the changing or missing transponder code would be the aircraft in question.

unfortuantely on 9/11 there was no system to filter out aircraft with or without a transponder from primary radar, which lead to the difficulty in tracking the flights in real time

i believe such a system has since been put in place

 

[uruk]

Guys, isn't it obvious by now that there's no amount of evidence that Zen will acknowledge as being evidence? If we actually handed him recovered parts of the airliner and manufacturing/maintenance logbooks showing the serial numbers on them correspond to the plane that was flight 175, he would just dismiss that as faked.

So unless you have some evidence that is even more solid than that, there is no way Zen will acknowledge that he's lost this debate. Please just give it up. Everyone who has stumbled into this thread can see exactly what kind of person we're dealing with.

That's why he refuses to put forth any explinations or hypothesis of his own because he knows all of his unreasonable tactics can be used against him. You can question the validity of absolutly anything and refuse any evidence presented. Solipsists do it all the time.

 

[gumboot]

unfortuantely on 9/11 there was no system to filter out aircraft with or without a transponder from primary radar, which lead to the difficulty in tracking the flights in real time

i believe such a system has since been put in place

To be fair this was only an issue for the military. The FAA had no problem whatsoever tracking AA11, UA175, and UA93 on 9/11. The only reason they lost AA77 was because it turned off its transponder in an area without primary coverage.

-Gumboot

 

[chillzero]

As regards chain of custody (the correct term for the chain of evidence disputed here):

The process to protect the chain of custody of DNA samples is stressed in the documentation that outlines the difficulties involved in obtaining viable DNA samples from Ground Zero.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/214781_10.pdf
and
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/214781apph.pdf

Once samples are collected and preserved at the site, they are sent to the laboratory for analysis.
<snip>

In the event of a mass fatality incident, it is likely—as occurred after the World Trade Center (WTC) attacks—that other laboratories will offer assistance to the lead laboratory. If appropriate chain-of-custody, accessioning, and other infra-structural concerns can be addressed, some of the capacity problems can be shared or outsourced.
If samples are sent to other laboratories at any stage of the analysis, the same quality control and chain-of-custody practices must be maintained.​

Standard policies for chain of custody require that from the moment an item is lifted from a scene, it is documented, signed for and often transported in tamper-evident containers.

http://www.answers.com/topic/chain-of-custody

An identifiable person must always have the physical custody of a piece of evidence. In practice, this means that a police officer or detective will take charge of a piece of evidence, document its collection, and hand it over to an evidence clerk for storage in a secure place. These transactions, and every succeeding transaction between the collection of the evidence and its appearance in court, should be completely documented chronologically in order to withstand legal challenges to the authenticity of the evidence.

Have you any information that indicates the appropriate chain of custody was not maintained on anything lifted from Ground Zero?

 

[twinstead]

Have you any information that indicates the appropriate chain of custody was not maintained on anything lifted from Ground Zero?

Yes, chain of custody. That's the term I was struggling to find.

So, IMO unless he indeed has evidence that the chain of custody wasn't maintained properly he has no business rejecting the DNA evidence collected at the scene as one of the many bits of physical evidence we are presenting to him that he claims we aren't, right?

 

[DGM]

ZENSmack:

Even in the official version only 12 remains were identified and none of the plane parts matched to serial numbers or maintenance records.

You have been asked repeatedly to prove your statements. Where does United Airlines say this was not their plane and the numbers don't match? Or are you simply been a troll?

 

[Belz...]

Changed twice? Why’s that? And how do you know they didn’t just start following a different object with a different transponder code at a different altitude? If anything its evidence that it’s not the same transponder code flight 175 started out with. This hurts your case.

No, it just demonstrates that you're merely engaged in "what if's" to support your crazy theory.

Yes your scenario is absurd.

Then drop the CT, already.

Besides even if they were on flight 175 this doesn’t prove it’s what hit the tower.

Doesn't "prove" it but it is very strong evidence, especially when you factor in the REST of the evidence.

The videos have been disputed as to what’s on them as well as the video validity and where they originated from. None of it is positive proof of what hit the tower or that the supposed hijackers could perform what is claimed.

Zen, this is what's called unhealthy skepticism. Now you're just beign silly. Besides, I don't even have proof that you even exist, or that the universe really exists. Until you provide such proof, I don't have to read your posts !!!