NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[tsig]

Look which camp is shifting the goalpoasts. The legal and standard procedures way to provide positive identification of the airplane is by way of the aircraft identification number. This camp of goalpoast shifters now argues such things as (1) I won't be able to do anything with the ID number if it was given to me, and, (2) there is a better way to establish positive identification, and that is thru radar tracks.

Well then, give me the aircraft identification number of the airplane that left the airport, and give me the radar tracks, and it is left as an exercise for me to figure out which airplane struck the 2nd tower. Why not just follow standard procedures?

So you've abandoned your "The planes can't fly that fast" claim?

 

[dadeets]

I suppose in your years at NASA you had an aircraft crash that was NOT an accident, but was a criminal investigation by the FBI rather than the NTSB. And furthermore, you concluded that there was something nefarious involved.

From the camp that is not troubled by the failure by authorities to provide positive aircraft identification, I find these reasons have been given:

1. This clearly wasn’t an accident, therefore there is no need to positively identify the aircraft.

2. Aircraft debris on the top of WTC 5 is consistent with the N6 in N612UA (the other airplane).

3. By demanding to [have the authorities provide positive aircraft identification, I am] admitting ignorance of the mountain of interlocking evidence and eyewitness testimony that shows that Flight 175 was hijacked by 5 Islamists; Marwan Al-Shehhi, Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan, Ahmed Alghamdi, Hamza Alghamdi, and Mohand Alshehri and flown into a tower.

4. The DNA evidence (of passengers from Flight 175) should be considered valid evidence.

5. The testimony of Lee Hanson, father of Peter Hanson, [should] be [considered] valid evidence.

6. The radar was able to track the aircraft from it's take-off at Logan all of the way to the WTC, [therefore no further need for positive aircraft identification.]

7. Rhetorical response: What would I do with the aircraft serial numbers if I were given them?

8. [To insist the authorities provide positive aircraft identification is to be in the camp of] those who are trying to desperately undermine that fact to instill doubt in the "official story" and insert their pet theory by default.

I find the length of the list does not outweigh the need for positive identification by the authorities. I thought JREF put critical thinking in high regard. Critical thinking demands a degree of skepticism towards each of these arguments for relieving the authorities of their responsibility to provide positive aircraft identification. I am somewhat dismayed at such a lack of critical thinking within an organization that apparently stands for that as a valued attribute.

PS. I don’t know what to do with Fonebone’s commentary about the ATC controller’s testifying that Flt 175 changed transponder codes, and the extreme rates of climb and descent. I don’t know if this is an argument for or against the need for positive aircraft identification.

 

[pgimeno]

I think it can be useful to make a list of claims Mr. Deets has backed and another list of claims that Mr. Deets failed to back and have been refuted before he has shifted the topic, just so that they don't fall into oblivion, as an antidote against goalpost moving.

List of valid, supported claims

(empty)​

List of invalid, refuted claims

• Mr Deets has provided no explanation for the dismissal of south-of-CITGO witnesses.
• Despite Mr. Deets' claim of 1/1000 probability, airliners can actually fly close to Mach 1 without breaking and it's hard to find an example of such breakage.

And finally, the list of topics under discussion which will make their way into one of the above lists:

List of claims under discussion

• Has enough evidence been shown, that the aircraft that crashed into WTC2 was a Boing 767 covering Flight 175 with ID N612UA? waypastvne has shown photographic evidence supporting it, and the radar data tracked it from the beginning to the end, so if Mr. Deets doesn't reply to that this claim will pass to the first list.
• Were any relevant procedures not followed regarding the investigation of the crashes in 9/11? The current status is that it was not an aircraft accident investigation (it was not an accident in the first place, it was a crime and thus subject to criminal investigation) and therefore no protocols for aircraft accident investigation needed to be followed.

Please feel free to point me out to any refuted claim I have forgotten to include here - preferably by PM, so that the list is complete and accurate. I have a short memory, so it's likely that I've forgotten something. I will post updates to this list as I see claims and responses appearing.

Note that a delay in moderation post approval may lead to this list being inaccurate in time, I mean, it's possible that previous responses that I didn't see when sending an updated list are all approved at once together with the list and shown before it.

 

[T.A.M.]

Mr. Deets:

thank you for answering MOST of my questions. I appreciate your honest response in both regards, even if we disagree on some.

I do agree, that in a perfect situation, one would like to postively identify the plane by serial number. Since we know the the serial number of the flight 175 that took off, your claim is what (A) that they did not look for the serial number on any of the wreckage, or (B) they did not find it, and hence you suspect they did not look?

I see that you think the DNA of passengers and the phone call should be valid evidence.

I am a little unclear in terms of your wording in some of your points, but I THINK you are saying that you are pleading ignorance to the exact evidence in terms of witness testimony for the 175 crash. There is plenty of evidence, but of course none of the witnesses could positively identify the jet airliner as FLIGHT 175 from down on the ground.

What is your comment on the ATC recordings that transpired concerning flight 175?

Thanks

TAM

 

[DGM]

I find the length of the list does not outweigh the need for positive identification by the authorities. .

Have you contacted these authorities personally (given you standings with NASA I would assume this would not be a problem) or are you just relying on what's available to the public on line?

I have been straight (and courteous) with you I would appreciate the same.

Thanks

 

[beachnut]

...

I find the length of the list does not outweigh the need for positive identification by the authorities. I thought JREF put critical thinking in high regard. Critical thinking demands a degree of skepticism towards each of these arguments for relieving the authorities of their responsibility to provide positive aircraft identification. I am somewhat dismayed at such a lack of critical thinking within an organization that apparently stands for that as a valued attribute.

PS. I don’t know what to do with Fonebone’s commentary about the ATC controller’s testifying that Flt 175 changed transponder codes, and the extreme rates of climb and descent. I don’t know if this is an argument for or against the need for positive aircraft identification.

Fonebone believes the delusions from 911 truth. He was looking for you to verify his delusions about 911. He is with you failed opinions on aircraft identification, no practical knowledge or evidence.


Prove RADAR data with supporting FAA documents required for flight in controlled airspace does not identify Flight 175 on 911 after the data was collected. Prove it, and since you can't, stop trying to mislead people with the failed opinions Flight 175 was not identified as the plane which impacted a tower on 911.

I have evidence, you have talk of procedure you can't source or reference. I was an aircraft accident investigator in the USAF, trained, and you are not, and have no idea what you are talking about.

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_ Path _Study_UA175.pdf
Evidence.


Here are things you can't deny with evidence and facts.
Flight 175 impacted the WTC tower at 510 knots. - it is a fact you can't refute with your quibbling and opinions.

We all know the serial number of Flight 175, it is on the documents used to launch Flight 175, cleared it to taxi, and shown by RADAR to go from the airport to the WTC. Evidence proves you are quibbling, this is critical thinking based on knowledge and experience.


It comes down to common sense. 19 terrorists took four planes. The only four planes lost on 911 were 11, 77, 93 and 175. Guess where they went? For a NASA guy like you, to quibble about this is not very critical thinking like, since all the evidence is there.

 

[stewster89]

Beachnut...
Can you clarify a few things regarding Vspeeds for me.

How is VMO different from VNE
Whats all this about a dive speed.... how does this work?

And also at low speeds wouldnt the speeds be referenced to KIAS to KTAS rather than mach numbers.. I would have thought the air too thick to reach those speeds without structual failure.

My experience (at this stage) is in smaller lighter planes that don't go fast enough to worry about compressibility of the air or stuff like that.

Sorry in advance if these are dumb questions.

 

[R.Mackey]

From the camp that is not troubled by the failure by authorities to provide positive aircraft identification, I find these reasons have been given:

[list of valid evidence deleted]

I find the length of the list does not outweigh the need for positive identification by the authorities. I thought JREF put critical thinking in high regard. Critical thinking demands a degree of skepticism towards each of these arguments for relieving the authorities of their responsibility to provide positive aircraft identification. I am somewhat dismayed at such a lack of critical thinking within an organization that apparently stands for that as a valued attribute.

So let's get this straight. You say there's no "positive aircraft identification," and then go ahead and list some of the very evidence you say doesn't exist. Interesting debate tactic.

The bottom line, which you say clearly, is this: You, personally, are not satisfied.

In other words, you have an unreasonable standard of proof. That's your problem. We aren't interested. You can believe whatever fairy stories you want. But just because you aren't convinced doesn't mean you have a valid argument.

Here's how a "Critical Thinker" would address this issue:

1. There is strong evidence that AA 175 was the aircraft in question

2. There is no evidence that it was not AA 175 (or, at the very least, you sure haven't provided any)

3. There is no reasonable alternative explanation of what hit WTC 2 if it wasn't AA 175

4. There is no reasonable alternative explanation of what happened to AA 175 if it didn't hit WTC 2​

Thinking critically, there's no discussion here at all. Your conclusion is nonsense.

 

[beachnut]

Can you clarify a few things regarding Vspeeds for me.

Vne usually is used in light aircraft like this. You stay in the green and if you fly too fast into the yellow you slow down, back into the green. Your manual for the aircraft, give you the speeds and other information.

Past Vne, you can have structural damage.

Here was some discussion about Vspeeds, and some pilots/people have different opinions. With research we can find the definitions and meanings.
http://forum.canardaviation.com/showthread.php?t=334
Wiki covers definitions and discusses Vspeeds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds

The Vspeeds for 767-200 are in a FAA certification document, A1NM.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...1DC94F8EA7EDC09986257674007756F7?OpenDocument

How is VMO different from VNE

Vmo - maximum operating limit speed
Vne - never-exceed speed
I used Vne in light aircraft and Vmo in large jets.

VNE - never exceed speed. The speed which must not be exceeded in a glide or dive or other maneuvers in smooth air. The red line at the top end of the ASI yellow arc, usually 90% of the 'design diving speed' - VD - which latter is usually 1.4 times VNO.
VNO - maximum structural cruise speed. The top end of the ASI green arc. When cruising at, and below, VNO the aircraft should not be damaged by a 35-knot vertical gust; which is at the bottom end of the severe turbulence scale.
Flight above VNO should only be conducted cautiously and in smooth air.

From the European Aviation Safety Agency...

CS 25.1505 Maximum operating limit speed
The maximum operating limit speed (VMO/MMO, airspeed or Mach number, whichever is critical at a particular altitude) is a speed that may not be
deliberately exceeded in any regime of flight (climb, cruise, or descent), unless a higher speed is authorized for flight test or pilot training
operations. VMO/MMO must be established so that it is not greater than the design cruising speed VC and so that it is sufficiently below VD/MD or
VDF/MDF,to make it highly improbable that the latter speeds will be inadvertently exceeded in operations. The speed margin between VMO/MMO and VD/MD or VDF/MDF may not be less than that determined under CS 25.335(b) or found necessary during the flight tests conducted under CS 25.253.

Since the terrorists don't care about rules, they exceeded Vmo because they can.

Proved on 911, a 767-222 can exceed Vmo to 515 knots and crash into the WTC.

When I exceeded Vmo on a flyby in a KC-135 at 500 feet, nothing happened, but as soon as I realized I had accelerated from 300 KIAS to over 370 KIAS I moved the throttles to Idle and coasted to a pull up to downwind. Why was I over 250 KIAS below 10,000? I was in formation with T-38s and a SR-71 and they have a waiver to fly 300 KIAS or as needed by their performance for safety, and we were in loose formation behind them.
Vmo in the KC-135 was 350 KCAS, it varies with altitude and is about 370 KIAS at 27,000 feet I believe. The MACH limit, .9 MACH for the KC-135 came into play at higher altitudes. Some where in our manual and performance data was the fact the KC-135 was test flown to .95 MACH.

The 767-200...

Airspeed Limits: VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points.
VFC = 390 KCAS to 17,600 ft/382 KCAS at 23,000 ft/.87M above 26,000 ft, linear variation between these points.
VMO = 360 KCAS/.86M

Whats all this about a dive speed.... how does this work?

Vd - design diving speed
911 truth conspiracy theorists would like to say 11 was over Vmo, but Vd in the 767 cert, of 420 knots. Flt 11 was going about Vd at impact.

And also at low speeds wouldn't the speeds be referenced to KIAS to KTAS rather than mach numbers.. I would have thought the air too thick to reach those speeds without structural failure.

For the 767, VMO = 360 KCAS/.86M, KCAS is close to KIAS and KTAS at low
altitude, sort of.
What speed does a 767 break up? We know 175 was going 510 knots! Did not see nay parts falling off. From flight test done on 911, a 767-222 can reach speeds of 510 knots at low altitude and appears to be flying with no visible structural failure. NICE to know when you fly a Boeing it was designed not to break up 150 knots over Vmo at 700 feet.
What does Boeing say about flight over 360 KCAS in a 767? What can Boeing legally say and not be sued when an idiot pilot decides to exceed Vmo and breaks the plane due to negligence because Boeing said they can go 580 knots; Boeing can't say that????
Boeing says! (for Mr Deets), or what Boeing can say.

Exceeding Vmo/Mmo can pose a threat to exceeding design structural integrity and design stability & control criteria of the airplane. At speeds less than Vmo/Mmo the airplane’s flight characteristics have been confirmed by flight testing to meet FAR requirements. At speeds in excess of Vmo/Mmo, however, normal airplane handling characteristics are not assured. http://www.biggles-software.com/software/757_tech/flight_instruments/_popup_for_40_vmo_mmo.htm

^ Boeing says exceeding Vmo can pose a threat. Deets, forgot to check with Boeing to see what they say; what they can say, "can pose a threat".

^^ Boeing says, normal airplane handling characteristics are not assured above Vmo.

Boeing did not say at 150 knots over Vmo the plane falls apart. Boeing said when you exceed Vmo, there is a possibility of a threat to structural integrity, and handling characteristics are not assured.

Mr Deets never said much of anything, he implies Flight 175 can NOT fly 510 knots and hit the WTC. He is wrong and unable to present evidence to support his non-point.

 

[stewster89]

Thanks

So VMO is quite similar to VNE... And its the upper limit that Boeing sets as the therotical speed which below the aircraft should not break up. Above this airspeed the ultimate loads will be exceeded may break up and fall apart. But the plane wont magically become unflyable at VMO? Its just the speed where bad things happen...

I see videos you know on sites like youtube and by p4t saying that 175 couldn't have survived its supposed rapid descent.

thanks

 

[dadeets]

I do agree, that in a perfect situation, one would like to postively identify the plane by serial number. Since we know the the serial number of the flight 175 that took off, your claim is what (A) that they did not look for the serial number on any of the wreckage, or (B) they did not find it, and hence you suspect they did not look?

I see that you think the DNA of passengers and the phone call should be valid evidence.

I am a little unclear in terms of your wording in some of your points, but I THINK you are saying that you are pleading ignorance to the exact evidence in terms of witness testimony for the 175 crash. There is plenty of evidence, but of course none of the witnesses could positively identify the jet airliner as FLIGHT 175 from down on the ground.

What is your comment on the ATC recordings that transpired concerning flight 175?

TAM,

My paradigm has shifted considerably since 9/11/01, more than I had realized, from that of the camp that is NOT troubled by the failure of authorities to provide positive evidence that UA 175 struck the South Tower. My paradigm leads me to a more skeptical viewpoint as I assess information related to the airplanes of 9/11.

1. I make no claim as to what the authorities did relative to identifying the specific airplane. I say only that they didn’t provide positive identification to the public. My paradigm is influenced by matters of this sort:

a. The FBI kept to themselves for several years their knowledge that not more than two-cell phone calls were completed from the four planes on 9/11. Only when they had to testify at the Moussaoui trial did they make this crucial fact known (a fact that is at odds with the commonly held narrative of 9/11).

2. I think the DNA of the passengers has the potential of being valid evidence, but the chain of custody would have to be closely scrutinized. There also is the question of positively identifying the passengers that boarded the airplane.

3. The phone call between Lee Hanson and his son, Peter Hanson. This is another case where I am more skeptical because of my paradigm, which is influenced by what may be a similar situation:

a. Pat Tillman’s family was lied to about the circumstances of his death. The lies were by the military, with the apparent motivation of putting a positive spin on a very troubling matter for public relations purposes.

4. Relative to witness testimony, I think there is none that can pin it down as to being flight 175. The question, as far as I’m concerned, is was it, for sure, flight 175?

5. My comment on the ATC recordings is that I don’t know how to assess them. They are one piece in a large puzzle that may or may not fit together. Something I’m reminded of as I think of other possibilities whereby the ATC may have been misled as to the identity of the airplane, is the Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) anomaly.

a. An ELT started sending locator signals 4 minutes before UA175 struck WTC 2.

b. No ELT was activated when UA175 struck WTC 2.

 

[BigAl]

TAM,

My paradigm has shifted considerably since 9/11/01, more than I had realized, from that of the camp that is NOT troubled by the failure of authorities to provide positive evidence that UA 175 struck the South Tower. My paradigm leads me to a more skeptical viewpoint as I assess information related to the airplanes of 9/11.

What about the radar track that shows 175 from take-off to impact?

Where is the aircraft, Boeing 767-222/ER registration number N612UA and all the people we know boarded it and haven't been seen since? (I knew someone that died on Flight 93.)

Why is the plan used by the terrorists for Flights 11 and 175 any different than that of Flights 77 and 93? We have even more physical and forensic information for the latter and it all supports the fact that 19 Arab Islamists hijacked 4 jets and crashed them into three buildings.

For each of the facts you so glibly dismiss and all of them taken together as a whole, you have to consider how many people would have had to have been in on the plot and have been given their script prior to 8AM on 9/11.

The script would have had to be flawless.

The thousands of people involved on 9/11 and the following investigation would have to have executed their parts flawlessly.

After 9 years none of the thousands of people have blown the whistle. By now a few thousand have died a natural death and none have made a death-bed confession for complicity in the death of 3,000 people.

 

[T.A.M.]

Mr. Deets;

Thank you for answering and providing your opinion. You have at least been polite about the issue. I will address your comments in bits...

TAM,

My paradigm has shifted considerably since 9/11/01, more than I had realized, from that of the camp that is NOT troubled by the failure of authorities to provide positive evidence that UA 175 struck the South Tower. My paradigm leads me to a more skeptical viewpoint as I assess information related to the airplanes of 9/11.

As I said above, in a perfect world, of course you would like identification via serial number. In the real world, in the absence of possible serial number matching, I believe the FBI and other investigative bodies did the best they could with what they had, to confirm it was flight 175 that hit the tower that day.

1. I make no claim as to what the authorities did relative to identifying the specific airplane. I say only that they didn’t provide positive identification to the public. My paradigm is influenced by matters of this sort:

a. The FBI kept to themselves for several years their knowledge that not more than two-cell phone calls were completed from the four planes on 9/11. Only when they had to testify at the Moussaoui trial did they make this crucial fact known (a fact that is at odds with the commonly held narrative of 9/11).

What they did to id the plane is as follows.

1. DNA of passengers that were registered on the manifests for flight 175 were identified in the GZ Debris. (which you admitted was valid evidence)
2. Plane parts consistent with a jet airliner of the same type as 175 were identified at the scene.
3. Eye witnesses confirm that a jet airliner approached and then struck the WTC.
4. There were only 4 crashes that morning. 2 in NYC, 1 in Washington, one at Shanksville. FLight 175 went missing in the approximate vacinity of the crash.
5. Phone calls were made from that flight indicating that a hijacking had taken place. (which you admitted was valid evidence).

2. I think the DNA of the passengers has the potential of being valid evidence, but the chain of custody would have to be closely scrutinized. There also is the question of positively identifying the passengers that boarded the airplane.

Why should the chain of custody be any more scrutinized then any other investigation where DNA is used. You are looking back with a skewed (towards govt or insider conspiracy) view and with 20/20 hindsight.

What questions are there about identifying who boarded the plane?

3. The phone call between Lee Hanson and his son, Peter Hanson. This is another case where I am more skeptical because of my paradigm, which is influenced by what may be a similar situation:

a. Pat Tillman’s family was lied to about the circumstances of his death. The lies were by the military, with the apparent motivation of putting a positive spin on a very troubling matter for public relations purposes.

That does not cut it. Lee Hanson has testified that he received a call from his son. He testified as to the contents of that call. So you either have to (A) call him a liar, meaning he was in on it, or (B) call him duped, and prove HOW THEY DID IT, or (C) admit the call was legit.

4. Relative to witness testimony, I think there is none that can pin it down as to being flight 175. The question, as far as I’m concerned, is was it, for sure, flight 175?

Well I am assuming that anyone close enough to visually id it as FLIGHT 175, probably did not survive. Hundreds if not more, saw a commercial jet airliner strike the tower.

5. My comment on the ATC recordings is that I don’t know how to assess them. They are one piece in a large puzzle that may or may not fit together. Something I’m reminded of as I think of other possibilities whereby the ATC may have been misled as to the identity of the airplane, is the Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) anomaly.

a. An ELT started sending locator signals 4 minutes before UA175 struck WTC 2.

b. No ELT was activated when UA175 struck WTC 2.

This ELT you speak of, I will plead ignorance to. I know there a good half dozen people here who can clarify such quite easily. The first thing that comes to my mind, however, is that like what likely happened to the black box, it was destroyed beyonf the point of being able to function.

TAM

 

[beachnut]

5. ... I think of other possibilities whereby the ATC may have been misled as to the identity of the airplane, is the Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) anomaly.

a. An ELT started sending locator signals 4 minutes before UA175 struck WTC 2.

b. No ELT was activated when UA175 struck WTC 2.

An ELT on 121.5 does not mean much; pilots report to ATC whan one goes off. That being said, they can be accidently set up off during training expercises, most training aids are on a differnent frequency but short burst could be tests at local airports for ELT installation by a tech. Your anamoly is due to your lack of knowledge.

The high speed dive of Flight 175 could have set some flutter going in the tail to set off the ELT? But the high speed excursion to .82 MACH at 11,000 feet hoppened at 9:01, 15 minutes after planes heard a faint ELT. What was happening at 8:44 for an ELT to go off?

Do you think the ELT points to a plane? Did any one do a direction find on the ELT mentioned in a news report which you are weighing high to form your doubts?

Your facts are wrong, the ELT was heard at 8:44. OOPS

The ELT was where when Flight 175 hit in a KE impact equal in energy to a 2000 pound bomb, 2093 pounds of TNT? Do you think the ELT made it? Does a radio work inside a steel building, on fire at 8:44 for an event that takes place at after 9:02? This is good.

There is a report of an elt by an airline pilot published in the NY Times but to relate it to Flight 175 by anyone is a streach, you report the beacon and move on; ATC will alert authorited to seach if the beacon keeps worling.

No matter how much confusion there was on 911, after 911 the RADAR tapes are taken and downloaded showing the exact track of Flight 175 to the WTC after taking off from an airport where Flight 175 had to file a flight plan and under positive control taxied from there the passenger boarded the flight ( and can't leave the plane while in the air) and flew into the WTC.

The ELT becomes, not an anomaly, a useless bit of information which 911 truth conspiracy theorists turn into bait to sucker in the gullible.

Grade school kids could figure out 911 and understand how RADAR, DNA, ATC procedures and more work to prove exactly where Flight 175 was on 911, and where fellow Americans were murdered and now fellow Americans make up fantasies about an event that has no anomalies, only facts and evidence some people can't comprehend and form rational conclusions with.


You have had days to look up the procedures you imply were not followed on 911. Post the procedures, or retract your claims.

In all my experience at NASA with aircraft accident investigations, I never recall anyone reporting back to the Board that the investigation procedures should not be followed, but rather, a line of reasoning should be followed that would make following the procedures unnecessary. Not only unnecessary, but add an argument that following the procedures would just result in information that wouldn't be all that useful to the Board.

List the procedures you say were not followed on 911. Let me remind you, procedures are listed, and you say there are some, so list them.

In particular the serial number procedure. List it, source it, reference it. It has been over 9 years and 911 truth has failed, can you do better than 911 truth?

With all your experience at NASA with aircraft accident investigations, please list the procedures not followed on 911. Did you go to aircraft accident investigation school at USC like I did?

 

[carlitos]

I think that these photos show flight 175. Does Mr. Deets disagree?

1. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Adair.jpg
2. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Bursuker.jpg
3. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Luke_Cremin.jpg
4. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Fisch.jpg
5. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Rob_Howard.jpg
6. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Myers.jpg
7. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Taylor.jpg
8. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Traub1.jpg
9. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Unnamed_1.jpg
10. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Unnamed_2.jpg
11. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Unnamed_3.jpg
12. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Unnamed_4.jpg
13. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Unnamed_5.jpg
14. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Unnamed_6.jpg

 

[dadeets]

Mr. Deets;

(B) call him duped, and prove HOW THEY DID IT, or (C) admit the call was legit.

Here is that question of 'burden of proof" again. Once the FBI testified not more than two calls were on cell phones, the burden of proof should be on the authorities.

I don't like to lay the "he was duped" thing on him, because it makes it sound like he was not being observant, or something. I must assume he was a victim of a systemic deception -- at least until the authorities provide an explanation for the FBI's testimony.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Here is that question of 'burden of proof" again. Once the FBI testified not more than two calls were on cell phones, the burden of proof should be on the authorities.

I don't like to lay the "he was duped" thing on him, because it makes it sound like he was not being observant, or something. I must assume he was a victim of a systemic deception -- at least until the authorities provide an explanation for the FBI's testimony.

I don't understand why you make this statement. For starters, the Hanson calls took place over the GTE airfones, not via cell phone, and those records were indeed provided. I even think Mike W. of 911 Myths has the .pdfs posted (Mike, feel free to expand on this, or to correct me if I'm wrong. I have a couple of .pdfs of the records provided to the 911 Commision, but I don't remember if I got them from your site or somewhere else).

At any rate, sir, you've misrepresented the event. I accept that this could be simple error on your part, but the fact remains that the issue of the number of cell phone calls made is irrelevant to the calls Hanson testified to. Those calls were made on a different system.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Addendum to my post

Apologies, but since this is a moderated thread, I can't simply reply to what I posted earlier. Anyway, another FBI record from the 9/11 Commision files (thanks to Mike W for hosting this and others):

http://www.911myths.com/images/4/46/FBI_Phone_analysis_re_Flight_175.pdf

I just post this in further support of my previous message. Anyway, to reiterate: There is indeed an explanation for the percieved discrepancy in the element of the historical narrative Mr. Deets illuminates. The explanation is that there's a misunderstanding on Mr. Deets part about what occurred, and whether cell phone calls are relevant to Mr. Hanson's testimony. They're not, because (as I say again), those calls took place over the GTE Airfone system.

 

[MikeW]

I don't understand why you make this statement. For starters, the Hanson calls took place over the GTE airfones, not via cell phone, and those records were indeed provided. I even think Mike W. of 911 Myths has the .pdfs posted (Mike, feel free to expand on this, or to correct me if I'm wrong. I have a couple of .pdfs of the records provided to the 911 Commision, but I don't remember if I got them from your site or somewhere else).

No, you're right, we have the records.

The cellphone argument is usually based on looking at a contradiction between one account of the call and the Moussaoui trial exhibit, though. So for instance if a newspaper article said a call was made by cellphone, and the exhibit says airfone, then the truthers treat this as some big change in the "official story".

To be fair, there are also relatives who mention cellphones, and Hanson's father is one of them. You can read his 302 (FBI interview) starting page 8 on http://www.911myths.com/images/1/19/Team1A_Box33_4FlightsPhoneCallsAndOtherData.pdf (25MB PDF file). However, the interview only says he "believed his son was calling from his cellular telephone", there's no reason given for that: maybe he didn't know about airfones, perhaps it was just an assumption.

 

[BigAl]

No, you're right, we have the records.

The cellphone argument is usually based on looking at a contradiction between one account of the call and the Moussaoui trial exhibit, though. So for instance if a newspaper article said a call was made by cellphone, and the exhibit says airfone, then the truthers treat this as some big change in the "official story".
.

Question: Does the data associated with the airphone call provide any information about the location of the plane when the call is made?