NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[dadeets]

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.

In my view, once there is a significant problem with “the cell phone calls” part of the calls-from-the-airplanes evidence, then all calls from the airplanes should be put in a questionable category until the reason for the problem is explained satisfactorily. Particularly, in this case, where it appears the FBI allowed the public to go on for several years with a government-caused false understanding of what the facts actually showed.

 

[MikeW]

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

Hmm, good question. I'm not sure how those calls are routed, but I'll take a look. (The 175 records are in something of a mess, though, hard to read - I think they were printed from a spreadsheet without any attempt being made to format them properly so they're all over the place. See http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Team7_Box13_FlightGTERecords.pdf if you're interested.)

 

[beachnut]

...

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.

Was there an ELT, an automatic ELT required? Source and reference; please.

What regulation mandates an Automatic ELT on commercial jet transports (911 and prior)?

Were ELTs on 11, 77, 93, and 175?

Do your contacts at pilots for truth know the answers?

"There is no requirement for an Automatic ELT on commercial jet transports", is true before what date?

 

[The Big Dog]

In my view, once there is a significant problem with “the cell phone calls” part of the calls-from-the-airplanes evidence, then all calls from the airplanes should be put in a questionable category until the reason for the problem is explained satisfactorily. Particularly, in this case, where it appears the FBI allowed the public to go on for several years with a government-caused false understanding of what the facts actually showed.

Have you brought your accusations directly to the family of the victims Mr. Deets, particularly those family members who actually spoke to the victims?

By the way, I can assure you that it is not in the FBI's mandate to cure a minority of the public's willful misunderstanding of the facts.

And now we seem to agree that your understanding was wrong, so where are we going with this?

 

[carlitos]

In my view, once there is a significant problem with “the cell phone calls” part of the calls-from-the-airplanes evidence, then all calls from the airplanes should be put in a questionable category until the reason for the problem is explained satisfactorily. Particularly, in this case, where it appears the FBI allowed the public to go on for several years with a government-caused false understanding of what the facts actually showed.

I have highlighted your reasoning problem above. Your view is jaded by something that apparently impairs your ability to think clearly about this evidence. The GTE airphone calls are well documented. The cell phone calls happened. There is no mystery here.

Just to confirm, since you never really closed the book on this:

Are you backing away from your obviously false claim that flight 175 couldn't have flown as fast as it did?

Also, would you bless us with a comment on the still photos of flight 175 that I linked?

 

[R.Mackey]

In my view, once there is a significant problem with “the cell phone calls” part of the calls-from-the-airplanes evidence, then all calls from the airplanes should be put in a questionable category until the reason for the problem is explained satisfactorily. Particularly, in this case, where it appears the FBI allowed the public to go on for several years with a government-caused false understanding of what the facts actually showed.

There is no "significant problem" with the calls, nor did the FBI "allow the public to go on with a government-caused false understanding." Some witness reports thought they were cell phones, and they were wrong. It happens. It is not the FBI's fault that the witnesses didn't understand the subtle difference between cell phones and Airfones.

Nor is it a big deal. The simple fact is that calls were made from those aircraft. These calls support the notion that the aircraft were UA 11 and 93, and AA 77 and 175, which contradicts your beliefs as stated in this thread. So, naturally, you are looking for excuses to throw them out completely. This is a formal logical fallacy, called Destroying the Exception.

It's total nonsense. This is like you receiving a letter that you thought came via normal post, but then later finding out it was delivered via FedEx, and on the basis of your own misapprehension claiming that the letter doesn't exist in the first place.

You were wrong about the Airfone calls. You were similarly wrong about the breakup behavior of passenger aircraft in overspeed situations. So far, your entire position is based on your own simple, easily corrected mistakes.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

In my view, once there is a significant problem with “the cell phone calls” part of the calls-from-the-airplanes evidence, then all calls from the airplanes should be put in a questionable category until the reason for the problem is explained satisfactorily. Particularly, in this case, where it appears the FBI allowed the public to go on for several years with a government-caused false understanding of what the facts actually showed.

There is no "significant problem" with the calls, nor did the FBI "allow the public to go on with a government-caused false understanding." Some witness reports thought they were cell phones, and they were wrong. It happens. It is not the FBI's fault that the witnesses didn't understand the subtle difference between cell phones and Airfones.

Nor is it a big deal. The simple fact is that calls were made from those aircraft. These calls support the notion that the aircraft were UA 11 and 93, and AA 77 and 175, which contradicts your beliefs as stated in this thread. So, naturally, you are looking for excuses to throw them out completely. This is a formal logical fallacy, called Destroying the Exception.

It's total nonsense. This is like you receiving a letter that you thought came via normal post, but then later finding out it was delivered via FedEx, and on the basis of your own misapprehension claiming that the letter doesn't exist in the first place.

You were wrong about the Airfone calls. You were similarly wrong about the breakup behavior of passenger aircraft in overspeed situations. So far, your entire position is based on your own simple, easily corrected mistakes.

Ryan beat me to it. The fact of the matter is, any misapprehension you're raising doesn't amount to anything more than public confusion regarding the difference between airfones and cell phones. It certainly does not refute the existence of those calls. Regardless of your or anyone else's perceptions of the event, the fact of the matter is that phone calls took place over the GTE system, one of those sets of calls was between Mr. Hanson and his son Peter, and the proof was indeed provided by the FBI. That call, among others, validates the historical narrative that says UA175 was hijacked.

To reiterate: Your objection is irrelevant. You base it on the number of cell phone calls documented, and the Hanson calls were established to have been made over the GTE airfone system, not a cell phone. That renders your objection meaningless.

 

[dadeets]

Just to confirm, since you never really closed the book on this:

Are you backing away from your obviously false claim that flight 175 couldn't have flown as fast as it did?

I didn't say it (the airplane that we see) couldn't have flown as fast as reported by NTSB, I said it was improbable.

Also, would you bless us with a comment on the still photos of flight 175 that I linked?

Certainly, these photos say nothing about the flight 175 question. I don't see any that cast doubt on it being a 767. There us one

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Taylor.jpg

that could reveal an external mod. I won't get into that.

 

[leftysergeant]

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Taylor.jpg

that could reveal an external mod. I won't get into that.

It is obvious to anyone who has ever taken a charcol drawing class that it it is not. It is the wheel well fairing contrasted with some sort of control surface.

 

[carlitos]

I didn't say it (the airplane that we see) couldn't have flown as fast as reported by NTSB, I said it was improbable.

That is technically correct. You, with your ex-director from NASA credentials adding to your supposed credibility on these matters, pulled three "probabilities" out of thin air. And then multiplied them together. If an employee of yours at NASA did this regarding any aspect of any project, what would your response have been?

The reason for questioning the 560 MPH is based on probability.

1. Probability of being able to fly 100 knots over the design dive speed, given no precedent for any plane ever having done that (to my knowledge). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

2. Probability of being able to fly well beyond the airspeed where the same type aircraft broke up in flight (Egypt Air #990). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

3. Probability of being able to control the airplane sufficiently at that high speed to strike a relatively small target (again, for that high speed). Again, say, 1 chance in 10.

Joint probability (Flt 175) was actually flying that fast is 0.1 X 0.1 X 0.1 = 0.001

Then, you informed us that there was "not a heck of a lot of difference between this probability and "zero."

We are talking about the difference between 1/1,000 vs. zero.

Not a heck of a lot of difference.

So, a fair assumption, using your words and my reading comprehension, is that your estimation that the flight behaved the way it did, is "basically zero," or "not a heck of a lot different from zero." "Near impossible," even.

Certainly, these photos say nothing about the flight 175 question. I don't see any that cast doubt on it being a 767. There us one

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Taylor.jpg

that could reveal an external mod. I won't get into that.

No please do. Vague inferences of something nefarious without further explanation are for truther sites. Spit it out. What kind of "mod" do you see, and to what end was this "mod" placed there?

 

[Drs_Res]

Please tell me that this is NOT going into POD territory....PLEASE.

 

[leftysergeant]

Please tell me that this is NOT going into POD territory....PLEASE.

It's that absurdity that will not die. All you can do is sick the dogs on it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Certainly, these photos say nothing about the flight 175 question. I don't see any that cast doubt on it being a 767.

If there's no doubt that a 767 hit the South Tower at the speed estimated, then what difference does it make to your argument whether that particular 767 was flight 175 or a different 767? Surely all 767's have more or less the same VNE?

Dave

 

[Bad_Doggie]

I didn't say it (the airplane that we see) couldn't have flown as fast as reported by NTSB, I said it was improbable.

That’s correct you did, based on this......

The reason for questioning the 560 MPH is based on probability.

1. Probability of being able to fly 100 knots over the design dive speed, given no precedent for any plane ever having done that (to my knowledge). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

2. Probability of being able to fly well beyond the airspeed where the same type aircraft broke up in flight (Egypt Air #990). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

3. Probability of being able to control the airplane sufficiently at that high speed to strike a relatively small target (again, for that high speed). Again, say, 1 chance in 10.

Joint probability (Flt 175) was actually flying that fast is 0.1 X 0.1 X 0.1 = 0.001

This has been shown to be incorrect by multiple posters on several counts.

What we have been asking you for the past 4 pages is; in the light of the information you have been given and now know of are you prepared to modify or retract this now evidently incorrect statement?

Why it has taken you 4 pages to clear up this small point is beyond reason, the only explanation left to the reader is that it’s evasion.

Woof!

 

[dadeets]

And then multiplied them together. If an employee of yours at NASA did this regarding any aspect of any project, what would your response have been?

On the "multiplied them together" part of it, I would know the employee knew something about joint probability theory.

On the picking numbers out of thin air, I would recognize it as making an attempt to communicate something, even though solid numbers are not available. It would be helpful to me for an employee to make an educated guess of one chance out of ten, for example, on one of these three components (called a conditional probability), as a means of communicating a degree of uncertainty, and why the uncertainty.

Then, you informed us that there was "not a heck of a lot of difference between this probability and "zero."
So, a fair assumption, using your words and my reading comprehension, is that your estimation that the flight behaved the way it did, is "basically zero," or "not a heck of a lot different from zero." "Near impossible," even.

Correct. But that is different from impossible.

No please do. Vague inferences of something nefarious without further explanation are for truther sites. Spit it out. What kind of "mod" do you see, and to what end was this "mod" placed there?

No, I'm not going to spend my time on this one. I would have to first assess the authenticity of the photo. I just don't want to go into it.

 

[dadeets]

If there's no doubt that a 767 hit the South Tower at the speed estimated, then what difference does it make to your argument whether that particular 767 was flight 175 or a different 767? Surely all 767's have more or less the same VNE?

Dave

If it can't be established it was flight 175, then the whole aspect of it being flown by a novice pilot is greatly reduced.

 

[pgimeno]

Updated lists of claims according to status

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.
• There were no relevant procedures that weren't followed regarding the investigation of the crashes in 9/11. It was not an accident, it was a crime and thus subject to criminal investigation, and therefore no protocols for aircraft accident investigation needed to be followed.
• The radar data supports the fact that it was Flight 175 the one crashing into WTC2. There is photographic evidence showing debris consistent with its tail number.

List of claims under discussion

• What happened to the Emergency Locator Transmitter?
• Are there any issues with the phone calls? Mr. Deets is making an argument from incredulity about the FBI letting the public be misled, which is in itself not an issue with the calls themselves, therefore that will make it jump to the other list unless Mr. Deets shows any real issue with the calls.
• Is a "mod" of the plane visible in Carmen Taylor's photograph?

 

[pgimeno]

Certainly, these photos say nothing about the flight 175 question. I don't see any that cast doubt on it being a 767. There us one

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Taylor.jpg

that could reveal an external mod. I won't get into that.

Why not? What kind of mod are you talking about? Any of these, per chance?

 

[BigAl]

If it can't be established it was flight 175, then the whole aspect of it being flown by a novice pilot is greatly reduced.

In the light of all the evidence showing that Boeing 767-222/ER, registration number N612UA (aka Flight 175) was hijacked by Arab Islamists and crashed into WTC1, your "if" makes your entire sentence irrelevant. You can't dismiss a fragment of evidence for no reason. In this case you've given none.

Until the truth or falseness of your "if" is determined, it is not acceptable to assume anything consequential to it.

You can't dismiss a fragment of evidence without dismissing all the evidence that supports it. That would require that you are familiar with all the evidence even if you don't agree with it.

You have shown no sign of being familiar with any of the evidence, let alone all of it.

 

[dadeets]

[*]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.

The 1/1000 probability includes the third factor, being able to control it to the point of actually hitting the tower.

If the probability only includes being able to fly at 510 KEAS, then my probability number is 1/100.