Flight 175 plane speed challenged

Dave Rogers said:
And you don't have proof that your imaginary tower ever existed or you'd be posting it.

Dave
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to prove anything to you or anyone else. I never claimed there was no flight 175 or people who were on it. You claimed there is evidence flight 175 was positively identified to be the object that flew into the tower I'm claiming it's just an assumption.

Where's this evidence? You keep forgetting that disputing any CT you think I might have doesn't prove your CT correct.

I could have started out easy with any of the other flights but I wanted to use the one with the supposed most witnesses and video tape and rub all your noses in it. Still you can't come up with where they positively identified the plane in respect to how it's normally done. This is your lame CT you cling to with nothing to back it up. I don't need to dispute it with another CT.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
I'm not trying to prove anything to you or anyone else. I never claimed there was no flight 175 or people who were on it. You claimed there is evidence flight 175 was positively identified to be the object that flew into the tower I'm claiming it's just an assumption.

Where's this evidence? You keep forgetting that disputing any CT you think I might have doesn't prove your CT correct.

I could have started out easy with any of the other flights but I wanted to use the one with the supposed most witnesses and video tape and rub all your noses in it. Still you can't come up with where they positively identified the plane in respect to how it's normally done. This is your lame CT you cling to with nothing to back it up. I don't need to dispute it with another CT.
Click to expand...
Still nothing huh?
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
The phone calls in the OP weren't made to me they were made to Boeing. They are the ones who claim the plane couldn't go as fast as the official CT claims. To you listen to them?
Click to expand...

Liar. They were made to a retired Boeing software engineer.

I have half a mind to walk me down to Canal Street and ask Boeing's lawyers what they think of your assertion about their company's claims.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
We are talking about flight 175 and the 12 victims who were supposedly identified from that flight. Which BTW is not 40%. There were 65 people on flight 175 so 12 would only be around 18%. Nothing you linked shows the specific chain of custody of the remains and DNA of those 12 victims which besides the point wouldn't identify the object that hit the tower anyway.
Click to expand...
See page 9, 10 of this PDF report for the proceedure that was used for the handling of remains and identification found at the site It pretty general but it shows where the samples were taken and processed:
http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/publications/sp/sp39/sept11book_ch4_simpson.pdf

page 5,6 of this report
http://www.iscpubs.com/articles/al/a0403mar.pdf

Here's the DMORT site. These are the guys that did the recovery and identification of the remains. It names names of the people who were incharge of the recovery effort.
http://www.dmort.org/DNPages/DMORTJan2002.htm
Here's thier manual:
http://www.dmort8.org/DMORT NTSB SOP Nov 2006.pdf

Here's some more:
http://www.genecodesforensics.com/news/CashHoyleSutton.pdf


Well if an airplane filled with people did not crash into the tower, how did thier DNA get there? Ever heard of causality? Ever heard of inference? What about everything else that supports the aircraft hitting the building? all the eyewitnesses, all the video, all the plane wreckage.
Look at it this way people got onto flight 175. this is verified by the boarding pass number being registered into the airports computers. A plane that was video taped crashing into one of the WTC towers matched the airplane type and markings of the plane the people got onto.
Some of the people who boarded flight 175 had thier DNA present at Ground Zero. (You don't seem to deny that thier DNA was there? So how did it get there?) There is no evidence that shows the plane landed somewhere else, there is no evidence that the people are still alive. There was only wreckage of that particular type of plane recoverd from Ground Zero. So what would you conclude from this?

All these things taken together would serve to identify the object that hit the WTC tower. It's called deductive reasoning.

Now it's obvious from all your arguing that you do not believe that flight 175 hit the tower. So if it was not Flight 175, what was it. There had to be something hitting the tower. All the video and eyewittnesses prove that something did hit it and they look remarkably like airplanes. So what was it?
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
The phone calls in the OP weren't made to me they were made to Boeing. They are the ones who claim the plane couldn't go as fast as the official CT claims. To you listen to them?
Click to expand...
[mode=zen]
There is no proof that those calls were made to Boeing. It would not be difficult for someone to have switched those calls to Crank Yankers, while the caller was waiting to be connected--even if we know that the correct Boeing number was dialed, which we have no proof of. It would be simple for a youtuber to fake the video. It would be child's play for Homeland Security to hijack the site such that the link you posted is switched to a different one, one that does not support your contention.

For instance, on my version of the link, the first person called says "I think it will take quite a while to find the specific person--it's a big company." This is clearly not an authoritative answer by a person in the know, but rather an admission of ignorance, backed up by another statement: "I don't know how to explain it in technical terms." Again, it is clear that this person is not making an official statement on behalf of Boeing, but is admitting that she does not have the capability of answering the question. The second person's first response is "I don't know", followed by advice for the caller to seek publicly available sources, since his question is phrased so generally.

Clearly, neither of those people are making a claim on behalf of Boeing that it is impossible for a 767 to fly at that speed at that altitude. Clearly, then, the video you think you linked has been replaced by members of the NWO with a more benign video. I don't need to have proof of this--I am simply pointing out that there is no proof at all that the video in the OP was a call to Boeing, or that the call wasn't intercepted, the youtube video switched, or even *horrors* that the OP wasn't invisibly modded by Darat, who has switched the original sensible prose with the insane rantings of a lunatic.
[/mode]
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
I'm not trying to prove anything to you or anyone else. I never claimed there was no flight 175 or people who were on it. You claimed there is evidence flight 175 was positively identified to be the object that flew into the tower I'm claiming it's just an assumption.
Click to expand...
All the evidence that has been found sofar shows that it could not be anything else. Therefore the planes in question hit the towers.

Unless you got something that says otherwise. Put up or shut up.
 
uruk said:
All the evidence that has been found sofar shows that it could not be anything else. Therefore the planes in question hit the towers.

Unless you got something that says otherwise. Put up or shut up.
Click to expand...
All what evidence? You haven't shown any.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
All what evidence? You haven't shown any.
Click to expand...

What!?!?! You kidding me? I hope your not studying to become a lawyer.

Ok. let's start by you defining what you think "evidence" is. Tell us what you think constitutes evidence. And we'll go from there.
 
Zen you can't claim we haven't shown you any evidence and make it magically true. We've just gone through the last 2 pages since the LAST time you claimed we haven't shown you any evidence showing you AGAIN all the evidence.

We've also exposed your rhetorical games concerning said evidence.

Then, after all that, you have the nerve to say "All what evidence?".

This is a joke, right? This is like some Monty Python skit.
 
uruk said:
What!?!?! You kidding me? I hope your not studying to become a lawyer.

Ok. let's start by you defining what you think "evidence" is. Tell us what you think constitutes evidence. And we'll go from there.
Click to expand...


I've given up on Zen, he is asking the impossible and he knows it. When someone needs to use their own definition of evidence(I think he may be confusing the term with proof; consult a dictionary Zensmack) in order to proclaim that "you have no evidence"....followed by "you still have no evidence" umpteen more times...it's a safe bet the no amount of evidence will do.

And if I understand him correctly, basically he wants serial numbers of plane parts(airplane DNA), 100% victim ID through DNA(1100 out of 3000+ isn't good enough), and he wants to see the chain of custody for all of the untold number of DNA samples - for starters.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
I'm not trying to prove anything to you or anyone else. I never claimed there was no flight 175 or people who were on it. You claimed there is evidence flight 175 was positively identified to be the object that flew into the tower I'm claiming it's just an assumption.

Where's this evidence? You keep forgetting that disputing any CT you think I might have doesn't prove your CT correct.

I could have started out easy with any of the other flights but I wanted to use the one with the supposed most witnesses and video tape and rub all your noses in it. Still you can't come up with where they positively identified the plane in respect to how it's normally done. This is your lame CT you cling to with nothing to back it up. I don't need to dispute it with another CT.
Click to expand...
what evidence can be presented that would convince you flight 175 hit the south tower?
 
defaultdotxbe said:
what evidence can be presented that would convince you flight 175 hit the south tower?
Click to expand...
How about this? TWA Flight 800 crashed in 1996 over the ocean. Supposedly.

Zen, can you prove that the recovered parts were really from that flight? I'm thinking that it was probably another plane that crashed into that ocean, and I'd like for you to show me the evidence establishing that the plane that was TWA800 was the one recovered.
 
DavidJames said:
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.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your comments, my field of expertise is certainly not writing. My English scores were reasonably low and frankly my knowledge of grammar is very poor. I should point out that I am not entirely sure Zen is doing this consciously. I have a hard time believing that many people in the 'truth movement' who appear to be arguing in this fashion or using many other logical fallacies are doing so intentionally.

Still, I re-read the last few pages to see if he had made any specific claims as to evidence required and was not surprised to find out he hasn't.

Thank you for your compliments, if I had more talent I would write this more formally.
 
apathoid said:
I've given up on Zen, he is asking the impossible and he knows it. When someone needs to use their own definition of evidence(I think he may be confusing the term with proof; consult a dictionary Zensmack) in order to proclaim that "you have no evidence"....followed by "you still have no evidence" umpteen more times...it's a safe bet the no amount of evidence will do.

And if I understand him correctly, basically he wants serial numbers of plane parts(airplane DNA), 100% victim ID through DNA(1100 out of 3000+ isn't good enough), and he wants to see the chain of custody for all of the untold number of DNA samples - for starters.
Click to expand...

Yea I know. But even if you provide him with all the info, he'll just wave it off. This guy is pretty much a solipsist. No amount of evidence will be enough. And he never comitts himself to any hypothesis although he implies much.

So either he's just joking around or he's an incredible idiot. I hope it the first.
 
CurtC said:
How about this? TWA Flight 800 crashed in 1996 over the ocean. Supposedly.

Zen, can you prove that the recovered parts were really from that flight? I'm thinking that it was probably another plane that crashed into that ocean, and I'd like for you to show me the evidence establishing that the plane that was TWA800 was the one recovered.
Click to expand...
You may be correct but there certainly seems to be substantially more on 800 then on 175.

TWA800reconstruction.jpg



http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/AAR0003_App.pdf

http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/business/twa800.html


NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
OFFICE OF AVIATION SAFETY
SURVIVAL FACTORS DIVISION
WASHINGTON, DC 20594
AIRPLANE INTERIOR DOCUMENTATION GROUP FACTUAL REPORT OF INVESTIGATION

The Airplane Interior Documentation Group (AIDG) was formed on July 24,
1996, and was assigned the task of documenting the airplane's occupant compartment as
well as creating a three dimensional reconstruction of the cabin interior.
The AIDG obtained data from the Boeing Airplane Company and TWA
maintenance regarding the airplane's interior components. Over the period from July, 24
1996, through October 1997, all interior parts received by the group were inventoried,
examined, identified, and where possible, placed in the interior reconstruction. Only
those parts which were verified as having come from a specific location in the airplane
were placed in the interior reconstruction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom