Flight 175 plane speed challenged

[ZENSMACK89]

Heck, I might as well add: your comments are often snide and unpleasant and are no joy to read, whether for informational or for interest. Alas. Ou sont les neiges d'antan? (Or something like that. "Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?")

How about adding some evidence?

 

[Mercutio]

So are you claiming I haven't given you a scenario at all or the one I give is more vast and complicated then the official CT?

I am saying that you have claimed that your (as yet undetailed) scenario would not be any more vast and complicated than the official story, but that for even the best possible values of "something else" and "somewhere else", you have multiplied improbabilities, added conspirators, increased complications far beyond what your simple handwaving claim suggests.

So far, you have said nothing to dispute that. Feel free to try. This will be your third opportunity; no one here will miss the fact that you have dodged twice now, instead of answering.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

http://physics911.net/georgenelson

"In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling."

 

[RedIbis]

http://physics911.net/georgenelson

"In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling."

Although this would be SOP, to some here in this forum all you need to prove that a flight crashed at a certain location is half a dumpster of scrap metal.

 

[DGM]

http://physics911.net/georgenelson

"In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling."

Zen:
The aircraft was identified, just not to you.
Hint. Do you remember seeing the nose gear strut?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I suppose Zen just happens to be missing all the posts with evidence.

But of course none of that is real evidence, meanwhile he makes claims of explosives being used to create fireballs as being factual, despite NO EVIDENCE what so ever and using Northwoods as evidence (which it is not).

And when asked for evidence of his claims, he is unable to present any all the while dismissing all the overwhelming evidence that shows what happened did happen.


And then he tops it off by using a quote out of context to imply that normally a plane flying at 500mph full of fuel into a building and then burning for 3 months would normally produce the same debris as a plane that crashes at slow speed like a normal accident. Also interesting is how he cherry picks his information while ignoring the experts in the same fields who far outnumber the non-experts he uses.

This goes beyond skepticism and falls into fraud.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

I am saying that you have claimed that your (as yet undetailed) scenario would not be any more vast and complicated than the official story, but that for even the best possible values of "something else" and "somewhere else", you have multiplied improbabilities, added conspirators, increased complications far beyond what your simple handwaving claim suggests.

So far, you have said nothing to dispute that. Feel free to try. This will be your third opportunity; no one here will miss the fact that you have dodged twice now, instead of answering.

No it was posed to me in a question that if 175 didn't hit the towers then what did? Now if 175 didn't hit the towers like the question poses then 175 would have to be someplace else and what did hit the towers would have to be something else. No?

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Zen:
The aircraft was identified, just not to you.
Hint. Do you remember seeing the nose gear strut?

No it wasn't.

 

[maxpower1227]

How about adding some evidence?

Touché

SDC is 100% right. We've SHOWN you evidence, and you immeidately dismiss it since it threatens your religiously held belief. I'm surprised that this thread is still going, since your endless-repeated snide remarks have reduced your participation in this thread to mere trolling.

I personally think everyone should be done with this thread until you either come up with a coherent idea on what DID hit Tower 2, or come up with an idea for where Flight 175 and the people on board ended up.

 

[Mercutio]

No it was posed to me in a question that if 175 didn't hit the towers then what did? Now if 175 didn't hit the towers like the question poses then 175 would have to be someplace else and what did hit the towers would have to be something else. No?

The handwaving part comes when you say that it would not be difficult to substitute the planes and yet still manage to provide the DNA evidence. You made that claim twice. For purposes of argument, I am willing to grant you ANY "someplace else" and ANY "something else"--now, how (you have twice claimed that it would not be difficult) did you get the DNA evidence back into the chain of custody from GZ? How many conspirators are actively involved? How many innocents must be fooled?

Come on, you said it wouldn't be difficult. You wouldn't want people to think you were lying, would you?

 

[DGM]

No wasn't.

Prove it!

 

[ZENSMACK89]

I suppose Zen just happens to be missing all the posts with evidence.

Assumptions and assertions aren't evidence. Debunking one CT even if you could doesn't prove your CT.

But of course none of that is real evidence, meanwhile he makes claims of explosives being used to create fireballs as being factual, despite NO EVIDENCE what so ever and using Northwoods as evidence (which it is not).

Where did I claim explosives were used to create fireballs?

And when asked for evidence of his claims, he is unable to present any all the while dismissing all the overwhelming evidence that shows what happened did happen.

That's funny coming from someone who can't even backup this post.

And then he tops it off by using a quote out of context to imply that normally a plane flying at 500mph full of fuel into a building and then burning for 3 months would normally produce the same debris as a plane that crashes at slow speed like a normal accident. Also interesting is how he cherry picks his information while ignoring the experts in the same fields who far outnumber the non-experts he uses.

Cherry pick some real evidence. Be my guest. Evidence is also not a popularity contest.

This goes beyond skepticism and falls into fraud.

This post goes beyond any sense.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Touché

SDC is 100% right. We've SHOWN you evidence, and you immeidately dismiss it since it threatens your religiously held belief. I'm surprised that this thread is still going, since your endless-repeated snide remarks have reduced your participation in this thread to mere trolling.

I personally think everyone should be done with this thread until you either come up with a coherent idea on what DID hit Tower 2, or come up with an idea for where Flight 175 and the people on board ended up.

See ya. Come back when you find some evidence.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Although this would be SOP, to some here in this forum all you need to prove that a flight crashed at a certain location is half a dumpster of scrap metal.

Half a dumpster of scrap metal? Is that the new CT line? Positively identified DNA of the passengers on the flight counts for nothing I guess.

What's the point of even arguing with people so devoid of sense?

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Although this would be SOP, to some here in this forum all you need to prove that a flight crashed at a certain location is half a dumpster of scrap metal.

Yeah I know. Pretty soon they're going to offer up a drawing of flight 175 with cartoon terrorists waving out the window and flying into the tower as evidence.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Half a dumpster of scrap metal? Is that the new CT line? Positively identified DNA of the passengers on the flight counts for nothing I guess.

What's the point of even arguing with people so devoid of sense?

Did they DNA match it to family member’s right there at ground zero?

 

[DGM]

Yeah I know. Pretty soon they're going to offer up a drawing of flight 175 with cartoon terrorists waving out the window and flying into the tower as evidence.

Zen or Swing:
When are you going to show me the proof that the aircraft was not identified? Surely United airlines must have said something about that.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Yeah I know. Pretty soon they're going to offer up a drawing of flight 175 with cartoon terrorists waving out the window and flying into the tower as evidence.

The level of thickness you exhibit is absolutely exasperating. What the hell does anything you've said in this entire thread prove?

Show a single cogent point you've made in this entire thread. You've done nothing but hand-wave.

 

[twinstead]

Zen are you suggesting that the DNA evidence is faked? Of course you can't deny it as evidence just because you THINK it could have been faked. In order to discount it you would need evidence it was.

Otherwise it stands as valid evidence you say we are not giving you.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Zen or Swing:
When are you going to show me the proof that the aircraft was not identified? Surely United airlines must have said something about that.

You need to prove they did. The only thing the Airlines were concerned with was getting their Gov bailout and making sure the only thing the supposed hijackers had were short knives so that they wouldn't be liable.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031201-549004,00.html

Air Support
Monday, Nov. 24, 2003 By SALLY B. DONNELLY/PHOENIX

Remember the airline bailouts following 9/11? Less than a month after the 2001 attacks, Congress rushed through a $15 billion bounty of subsidies and loan guarantees for U.S. carriers — which suffered catastrophic human and business losses that day and the next two. Washington first forked over money for anything that could be linked to 9/11, then paid out $1.5 billion in assistance to five airlines that claimed to be on the verge of extinction.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a021104shortknives#a021104shortknives

February 11, 2004: Hijackers Said to Use Short Knives, Not Box Cutters It is reported the 9/11 Commission now believes that the hijackers used short knives instead of box cutters. The New York Observer comments, “Remember the airlines’ first reports, that the whole job was pulled off with box cutters? In fact, investigators for the commission found that box cutters were reported on only one plane [Flight 77]. In any case, box cutters were considered straight razors and were always illegal. Thus the airlines switched their story and produced a snap-open knife of less than four inches at the hearing. This weapon falls conveniently within the aviation-security guidelines pre-9/11.” [New York Observer, 2/11/2004] It was publicly revealed in late 2002 that box cutters were illegal on 9/11.