NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[dadeets]

[*]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.

The letting the public be misled is a side issue. My main point is, once there is a significant problem with the phone-calls part of the official explanation, then I maintain that all of the phone calls from the planes should be set aside and not be used as part of an argument for anything. Secondly, there is a significant problem, once the FBI testified not more than two were on cell phones. The problem is most clear with AA77, where they did not have seat-back phones. That certainly puts nearly all of the calls on that plane into question. But, back to my main point, that should put all of the calls on all four flights into question until there is an explanation given.

 

[beachnut]

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.

Please explain the ELT anomaly. Thank you.

 

[BigAl]

The letting the public be misled is a side issue. My main point is, once there is a significant problem with the phone-calls part of the official explanation, then I maintain that all of the phone calls from the planes should be set aside and not be used as part of an argument for anything. Secondly, there is a significant problem, once the FBI testified not more than two were on cell phones. The problem is most clear with AA77, where they did not have seat-back phones. That certainly puts nearly all of the calls on that plane into question. But, back to my main point, that should put all of the calls on all four flights into question until there is an explanation given.

The planes had airphones of 9/11/2001.

A work-mate of mine (Ed Felt, Flight 93) made one of those calls. Are the people he spoke with lying to me?

How big is your conspiracy? How many thousands of people, including family members are in on it?

We have the testimony of family members and others that received the calls.

We have the data collected by the phone network that shows roughly the location of the plane when the call was made.

We have boarding records and video that tells us who boarded the planes.

The planes and passengers haven't been seen since.

 

[dadeets]

Please explain the ELT anomaly. Thank you.

It's written up at:

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2010/09/911-time-discrepancy-oddity-distress.html

 

[A W Smith]

The letting the public be misled is a side issue. My main point is, once there is a significant problem with the phone-calls part of the official explanation, then I maintain that all of the phone calls from the planes should be set aside and not be used as part of an argument for anything. Secondly, there is a significant problem, once the FBI testified not more than two were on cell phones. The problem is most clear with AA77, where they did not have seat-back phones. That certainly puts nearly all of the calls on that plane into question. But, back to my main point, that should put all of the calls on all four flights into question until there is an explanation given.

you are not up to speed Deets, The "no seat back phones on 77" was debunked in 2007'

you can start at the beginning of this thread
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q...=q287L5ZNVF1gMbTGBRLluQ&cbp=12,213.22,,0,0.94http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85833&highlight=airphones

or jump to the end 12 pages later
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85833&highlight=airphones&page=12

or
AA 77 Airfones, the Final Story

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search/label/Airfones

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The letting the public be misled is a side issue. My main point is, once there is a significant problem with the phone-calls part of the official explanation, then I maintain that all of the phone calls from the planes should be set aside and not be used as part of an argument for anything.

The phone calls should not be set aside. Any misunderstandings that exist are on your part, not on the part of the ones presenting the evidence. You give zero legitimate reason to set them aside. The fact of the matter is that they contradict your stance, and are therefore inconvenient for you, so you seek to dismiss them. You cannot. They were made, the evidence is clear, the misunderstandings are on your end. That is no good reason to set them aside.

Once again:

It is your job to prove they're false or fabricated. To date, you've not even tried to do this.

Secondly, there is a significant problem, once the FBI testified not more than two were on cell phones. The problem is most clear with AA77, where they did not have seat-back phones. That certainly puts nearly all of the calls on that plane into question. But, back to my main point, that should put all of the calls on all four flights into question until there is an explanation given.

You should not use David Ray Griffin as your source of information. We dealt with this back in 2007. Part of the misapprehension stems from sloppy research on truthers part:

It seems that Morgan and Henshall asked precisely that question, "Do your 757's have airphones?", and the American Airlines spokesman gave an appropriate answer for 2004: "no". They didn't ask what the situation was in 2001, and so their emails have nothing to say about 9/11 at all. (Even Griffin would later admit this at 911blogger).

... and also from an aircraft maintenance manual obtained by truthers... dated 2007.

The fact of the matter is, American Airlines had publicly stated that they intended to stop airfone service in 2002:

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1033-831093.html

American Airlines will discontinue its AT&T in-flight phone service by March 31, a spokesman for the airline said Wednesday...

...
American will stop the service by March 31 and then take steps to remove the phones from its airplanes.

Date of article: Feb. 6, 2002. Note the dates: THey will cease service in 2002, then they will remove the phone sets.

Also, note that AA is on record as stating the following:

Engineers at our primary Maintenance & Engineering base in Tulsa tell me that they cannot find any record that the 757 aircraft flown into the Pentagon on 9/11 had had its seatback phones deactivated by that date. An Engineering Change Order to deactivate the seatback phone system on the 757 fleet had been issued by that time... It is our contention that the seatback phones on Flight 77 were working because there is no entry in that aircraft’s records to indicate when the phones were disconnected.
John Hotard, Corporate Communications, American Airlines

The bottom line is that all the evidence that exists shows that the seatback airphones were indeed present and functioning on Flight 77. And that's before you get into the records from GTE demonstrating their use (see: Moussaoui trial evidence). Your stance is shown to be based not on the actual evidence, but on truther spun facts which ignores existing evidence. The fact of the matter is, they were indeed present and used, and records exist of such. Your claim is refuted. And this shows once again that you have zero reason to set aside the phone calls as evidence.

 

[R.Mackey]

It's written up at:

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2010/09/911-time-discrepancy-oddity-distress.html

This "writeup" is wildly misleading.

Even assuming they were installed in the first place, ELT's are coded to their individual aircraft. I've found no evidence whatsoever that the codes were ever even recorded, certainly never matched to any of the four flights on September 11th. Yes, that's right, Mr. Deets. Your lot demands serial numbers and such from us, I now turn those tables on you. Show me the hex codes. Prove it wasn't just a signal from a Cessna with electrical problems.

In our case, only four aircraft went missing so identification is simple, but in yours there are potentially thousands of possible ELT signal sources. ELT's go off all the time, not just in crashes. The overwhelming majority of them are accidental activations. Low batteries, wiring harnesses coming loose, bad sensors, you name it. Because it's an emergency signal people pay attention to them, every time, but they are almost always false alarms.

ELT's would not be expected to survive the Twin Towers impacts. Those crashes were unusually severe, and even if they did survive they would wind up (a) in a steel framed building and (b) in a fire. ELT's are not fireproof, and we know the Twin Towers were a difficult radio environment. Were the latter not true many more firefighters would have survived.

The ELT's also could not possibly have "confused" air traffic control. The reason you brought it up in the first place, which you apparently have already forgotten, is that you deny the identity of Flight 175. Just because some pilots briefly heard an intermittent ELT signal in the area doesn't mean anyone was relying on it for identification. As we've told you before, there are unbroken radar tracks from takeoff to impact. The aircraft cannot possibly have been confused with any other. You also have been unable to provide any alternative identification, no matter how speculative.

This is another non-issue just like everything else you've brought to the table. Bereft of evidence, your only asset is your claimed expertise -- and all you've done here is given us a sterling demonstration of why Argument to Authority is unreliable.

 

[ProBonoShill]

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.

What happened to all the passengers on Flight 175?

Are they and their families part of the inside job?

Was United Airlines also in on the conspiracy?

 

[Bad_Doggie]

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. .

<sigh> Look our problem with your probability sum isn’t the use of “joint probability theory” or any other method of statistical analysis it is the fact that your basic premise on all 3 of your stated accounts has been shown to be wrong.

This is becoming tiresome, but to continue the point:

If an employee of yours at NASA came to you with a technical conclusion which he had arrived at by, pulling three "probabilities" out of thin air and then multiplied them together without any justification what-so-ever.”

Further, to this you knew as a demonstrable fact that all 3 of the basic premises that he had applied this “joint probability theory” to were factually incorrect.

“If an employee of yours at NASA did this regarding any aspect of any project, what would your response have been?”

Woof!

 

[dadeets]

“If an employee of yours at NASA did this regarding any aspect of any project, what would your response have been?”

Well, if an employee gave me a probability number of 10 out of 10 on something like this, as Mackey did, I would ship the employee off to someplace where he/she couldn't do any damage.

 

[dadeets]

What happened to all the passengers on Flight 175?

I don't know.

Are they and their families part of the inside job?

I would think not, with one possible exception.

Was United Airlines also in on the conspiracy?

I don't know.

 

[beachnut]

It's written up at:

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2010/09/911-time-discrepancy-oddity-distress.html

This is funny. That article is BOGUS; A big non-issue! Fool by something in Aviation again? You don't know a Boeing 767 can go 510 knots at 700 feet in a shallow dive, you don't seem to understand RADAR along with the ATC procedures positively identifies Flight 175, and you don't know ELTs. I would expect more from retired NASA guy. This adds to your incorrect claims on 911.

Operational automatic ELTs were not on Flight 11, 77, 93, 175 on 911. FAR Part 121 did not require ELTs back in 2001.

The ELT heard by pilots on 911 were a simple signal on 121.5. ELTs sound like this on 121.5 - http://ipg-protect.com/sar/sounds/elt01.wav

Back in 2001, when ELTs were not required, many airline pilots did not realize there was nothing on board their airplanes to positively identify their location in a crash. You didn't either.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Well, if an employee gave me a probability number of 10 out of 10 on something like this, as Mackey did, I would ship the employee off to someplace where he/she couldn't do any damage.

We are NOT discussing the employee who brought a probability number of 10 out of 10.

We are discussing the employee who gave you a probability sum of

0.1 X 0.1 X 0.1 = 0.001

Based on 3 false premises, what would your response have been?

Would you make his next task in some safety critical area?

Would you feel confident that this employee would apply any rigour and standard of professionalism to any future project?

Woof!

 

[Sabretooth]

Mr Deets - I've asked this question several times. I'm not sure why you aren't answering.

According to the RADAR data, UL175 was operating within its flight envelope. I'm sure you've seen this image (below) of the data before.



I've made markings to show where I'm referencing. Basically, we are looking at a decent of 22,500 feet in 5 minutes...or a rate of 4,500 FPM. This is not outside the operations of a Boeing 767.

What makes you believe that a 767 cannot operate in this manner when all the known data suggests that it can?

 

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post
What happened to all the passengers on Flight 175?

I don't know.



I would think not, with one possible exception.



I don't know.

How was the DNA for all passengers and crew found and identified at the Flight 77 and 93 crash sites and DNA for a few passengers on Flight 11 and 175?

Do you know hoe tje DNA was collected and analyzed and the results presented?

How many people do you think are in on the execution of the crime of 9/11 and the cover-up?'

 

[Grizzly Bear]

No, I never said it was not possible. I said it was improbable.

We know of at least two other examples as well: PSA Flight 1771 & Flight 93. Both were hijackings which ended with the air craft hitting the ground at extreme velocities. The former is estimated to have reached 700 Miles per hour by the time of its impact with the ground. Flight 93 is estimated to have impacted the ground at ~550 miles per hour. Neither plane broke up while in transit at these speeds. As has been pointed out before, although they're not designed to be flown at these excessive speeds (especially applicable to the PSA flight)for long periods, if the pilot flying it doesn't care about the condition of the plane after subjecting it to those strains the "probability" of it happening is irrelevant to whether the planes can withstand it or not. The only relevance I see in any "probability" discussion is the likelihood of a pilot being insane enough to push the aircraft he's flying to it's absolute limits, but then most pilots aren't on suicide missions when they fly them either.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

To truthers wondering why we're always so dismissive of your side's claim to expertise: Read this thread. Here we have a NASA project manager, and someone who's trained in physics, math, engineering, etc. His credentials have been burnished time and time again by you conspiracy peddlers. So supposedly he's got something worth saying, right?

But when he participates, what do we actually end up with?

• Free fall.
• Explosives.
• Pyroclastic-like flow.
• Jet maneuvering allegations, which are starts towards claims that the flight path reconstructions are false
• North of Citgo.
• Plane identification allegations, which is a start towards no-planerism.
• Cell phone questions, which are starts towards "calls (or call records) faked" allegations.

... and so on. So tell me, which one of those are issues that a NASA project lead and aerospace engineer brings unique insight to? I can think of only two: Jet maneuvering allegations and plane identification allegations. And in those posts, find me points he raises that weren't already raised by previous truthers and refuted in turn.

And as for the rest: Find me where he's brought anything new to the table.

My point is: What has this expert brought to the debate that hasn't already been so well refuted that it doesn't have a permanent home at 911myths, the Popular Mechanics 9/11 page, or Debunking 9/11? And if he's not bringing up items that haven't already been refuted there or in this forum, then why trumpet his credentials to begin with?

 

[dadeets]

How was the DNA for all passengers and crew found and identified at the Flight 77 and 93 crash sites and DNA for a few passengers on Flight 11 and 175?

This is part of a circular argument.

(1) It couldn’t have been other than UA175 hijacked by Islamic extremists, because the passengers described the hijackers as well as that they were making many of the calls via cell phones;

(2) the FBI testifies years later not more than two cell-phone calls were made from all four planes combined;

(3) the passengers who thought they were using cell phones must have been mistaken, they obviously were using satellite phones;

(4) … and so forth, as more reasons come up to question if these passengers were actually on the planes, or these were the planes we’ve been told they were, or if this might instead be a black operation;

(5) but, we have proof the passengers were on the planes, because the authorities have told us their DNA identifies these particular passengers as having been on the plane that crashed into WTC 2, of which say the authorities, there has never been any question it was UA175, to the point where a positive identification of the specific aircraft is not necessary.

 

[A W Smith]

This is part of a circular argument.


but, we have proof the passengers were on the planes, because the authorities have told us their DNA identifies these particular passengers as having been on the plane that crashed into WTC 2, of which say the authorities, there has never been any question it was UA175, to the point where a positive identification of the specific aircraft is not necessary.

the aircraft WAS positively identified. Perhaps not to your personal satisfaction due to i ncredulity or agenda. but it was, through radar, through collected personal effects, through markings on what remained of the fuslage of 175 on a rooftop at wtc, through human remains, including for instance part of a hip belonging to a person who's id was nearby. through the streets of lower Manhattan littered with flight tickets from those aircraft. through a passengers voice on a seatback phone describing "i see buildings, we are very low" seconds before impact for flight 11, from a passenger talking to his father who's conversation ended the moment his father saw flight 175 impact the south tower live on TV as his mother cried out. To the fact that the insurance companies paid out for both the destroyed aircraft AND the victims including the WTC property. Deets, ALL are satisfied with the generally accepted event time-line including the families, EXCEPT for yourself. The aircraft were identified, you can stomp your feet all you want. It will not change reality.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

This is part of a circular argument.

(1) It couldn’t have been other than UA175 hijacked by Islamic extremists, because the passengers described the hijackers as well as that they were making many of the calls via cell phones;

(2) the FBI testifies years later not more than two cell-phone calls were made from all four planes combined;

(3) the passengers who thought they were using cell phones must have been mistaken, they obviously were using satellite phones;

(4) … and so forth, as more reasons come up to question if these passengers were actually on the planes, or these were the planes we’ve been told they were, or if this might instead be a black operation;

(5) but, we have proof the passengers were on the planes, because the authorities have told us their DNA identifies these particular passengers as having been on the plane that crashed into WTC 2, of which say the authorities, there has never been any question it was UA175, to the point where a positive identification of the specific aircraft is not necessary.

For the record: The GTE Airfone service was air to ground radio, not satellite.

Furthermore: GTE operators also testified to handling many of those calls, as well as the families.

Regarding the DNA evidence: While the primary responsibility for handling DNA identification at the New York site fell to the New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, they were assisted by an ad hoc group called the "the Kinship and Data Analysis Panel", which was comprised by many specialists from many agencies (the FBI, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, etc.) as well as many individuals in academia. As noted in this after action report ("Lessons Learned from 9/11: DNA Identification in Mass Fatality Incidents"), the organizations that sent individuals and gave assistance were:

• the National Institute of Health
• The National Human Genome Research Institute
• The National Center for Biotechnology Information
• Armed Forces Institute of Pathology DNA Identification Laboratory (AFDIL)
• Brigham and Women’s Hospital
• Carleton University
• Indiana University School of Medicine
• Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research
• New York State Department of Health
• the University of Central Florida
• the University of North Texas Health Science Center
• Yale University School of Medicine

I list these organizations for this reason: You, sir, talk about the DNA identification coming from "the authorities". That is a statement of suspicion regarding the veracity of those "authorities" identification. If those DNA identifications were indeed "cooked" or otherwise faked by "the authorities" (and let's be honest: Why else would you question "the authorities" identification of the victims if not to question the veracity of those identifications?), then my question to you is: Just how many people are in on this conspiracy? You've already included:

• the victims families
• the GTE staff on duty on September 11th who handled those airfone calls
• Individuals from all the organizations listed above who were involved with the Kinship and Data Analysis Panel.
• The individuals in the New York Office of the Chief Medical Examiner who were involved in the DNA analysis

... and so on. So again: Just how big is this conspiracy behind the DNA evidence by itself? I realize I'm merely making a statement of incredulity at the notion that all those people would be involved in a conspiracy to distort the DNA evidence, but to be blunt, sir, you yourself are indulging in a statement of incredulity regarding your suspicion of the truthfulness and reliability of the evidence yourself. You're not providing any proof that such evidence is to be suspected. At any rate: What's wrong with the DNA identifications? You're obviously distrustful of it, yet besides a vague charge of it coming from "the authorities", you give no reason why it should be distrusted.