Flight 175 plane speed challenged

[Corsair 115]

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.

Scarp metal from a dumpster might fool you. It might fool me. But it will not fool trained and experienced crash investigators. It will not fool engineers who work with a given aircraft type. Such folks can easily tell whether a piece of metal is a piece of meaningless scrap from a junkyard or a piece of wreckage from a particular airliner.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

No, your point was that the chain of custody couldn't be trusted. Got that.

One would have to see it in order to trust it. Except for some of the people here that is. Site the chain of custody. Get that?

It's just this comment is so stupid on its face, that you even made it shows how there is no way any kind of evidence anywhere of any sort would ever satisfy you. Guess we just forget about ever using DNA in any court. Or fingerprints. Or fiber evidence. I mean, there are chains of custody required for those as well, and they could be faked as well! Let's just open the jails and let everyone go, they all were framed!

Ok where is it for the 12 on flight 175?

My goodness, do you even try? Geez, come on, come up with something that makes some sense!

geez come up with some evidence already or don't bother.

 

[ktesibios]

No, your point was that the chain of custody couldn't be trusted. Got that. It's just this comment is so stupid on its face, that you even made it shows how there is no way any kind of evidence anywhere of any sort would ever satisfy you. Guess we just forget about ever using DNA in any court. Or fingerprints. Or fiber evidence. I mean, there are chains of custody required for those as well, and they could be faked as well! Let's just open the jails and let everyone go, they all were framed!

My goodness, do you even try? Geez, come on, come up with something that makes some sense!

Why do things by halves? Clearly we must also round up every person who has ever been excluded as a suspect by fingerprint or DNA evidence in any criminal investigation and throw them into jail immediately!

 

[pomeroo]

So there was an incident and something happen on flight 175? How does that prove it’s what hit the tower?



I didn’t say there was no such thing as flight 175 or employees that worked on it. How does this prove it’s what hit the tower?



Changed twice? Why’s that? And how do you know they didn’t just start following a different object with a different transponder code at a different altitude? If anything its evidence that it’s not the same transponder code flight 175 started out with. This hurts your case.



I didn’t claim nothing happened to Flight 175.



No it does not. They don’t track the plane by phone calls.
Yes your scenario is absurd.


This is all debated and there is no DNA evidence of the hijackers claimed to be on flight 175. Besides even if they were on flight 175 this doesn’t prove it’s what hit the tower.



It also matches the profile of other flights that day thought to be possible hijackings. It doesn’t prove it’s what hit the tower.



No it’s not. It’s an assumption.



No it’s not. It’s an assumption.



No it’s not. It’s an assumption.



Some of them might be but that’s not what I’m talking about.

This is not Ground Zero it’s an Airport. How hard would it be to get personal items from an airplane to an airport? Have you ever flown? Have they ever lost your luggage?

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local...758567.photogallery?coll=nyc-swapbox-homepage

New York Newsday
March 29, 2004
WTC artifacts await museum
By Errol A. Cockfield Jr.

What's left of the World Trade Center, the very bones of the Twin Towers and the errant artifacts from the worst terror attack in the nation's history, sit now in a cavernous hangar at Kennedy Airport.

This is not Ground Zero it’s a lab. Are you suggesting they did DNA testing and matching down at Ground Zero?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals/256/lessons-learned.html

Identifications are made by comparing the DNA profile of reference samples with those from the human remains. The reference samples can be obtained from: (1) personal items used by the victim (a toothbrush, hairbrush, or razor); (2) banked biological samples (sperm or biopsy tissue from the victim); (3) biological relatives of the victim; and (4) human remains previously identified by other methods or other already-DNA-typed fragmented remains.



The videos have been disputed as to what’s on them as well as the video validity and where they originated from. None of it is positive proof of what hit the tower or that the supposed hijackers could perform what is claimed.



I understand it’s not hard evidence. Nothing you’ve presented is hard evidence and most of it isn’t even relevant in any manner as to proving what hit the tower.

The mods insist on preserving the distinction between the argument and the arguer. As has been pointed out several times, the argument, when shown to be devoid of substance, becomes the arguer. Gumboot laid out the evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that Flight 175 hit the South Tower. You have nothing that calls the evidence into question. If you are incapable of reasoning from a) an incident that causes air traffic control to lose contact with the flight crew, radar data that shows b) the plane's descent into NYC, c) the disappearance of the plane--apart from the WRECKAGE found at the crash site--from the planet, d) the deaths of all passengers and crew, e) the historical fact of a plane crashing into the South Tower at precisely the moment Flight 175 vanishes, to the conclusion that the plane that crashed was Flight 175, then the problem is you--you, the person. YOU--not the argument you are making, because you aren't making an argument. You are, in effect, saying that you are incapable of displaying the ability to think sequentially that distinguishes humans from other animals.

Your "argument" is nonexistent. You can't think.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Scarp metal from a dumpster might fool you. It might fool me. But it will not fool trained and experienced crash investigators. It will not fool engineers who work with a given aircraft type. Such folks can easily tell whether a piece of metal is a piece of meaningless scrap from a junkyard or a piece of wreckage from a particular airliner.

This is the problem with conspiracy theorists: they think everyone, including trained forensics professionals, are as incompetent as (or worse than!) they are at analyzing the evidence. Such hubris.

 

[pomeroo]

Part of the Operation Northwoods plan…

http://thetruthproject.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/northwoods.pdf
Annex to Appendix
to Enclosure A
UNCLASSIFIED
TOP SECRET SPECIAL HANDLING NOFORN
——————–[page 13; page 14:]——————–
TOP SECRET SPECIAL HANDLING NOFORN
UNCLASSIFIED

c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.

Why do you conspiracy liars insist on using a plan that was rejected to support your fantasies?

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Not necessarily but maybe.......? Do you or do you not have any evidence that the DNA was planted or faked. It's a simple question.

There is no evidence of DNA just a claim.

Now you are saying DNA of passengers is not evidence unless someone can "show me where anyone did this for the 12 from flight 175 or any of the DNA for that matter? Can you show me exactly where the DNA was found for each sample and how it got to the lab and the complete record of it's testing?" . Unfortunately for you, no one has to do anything of the sort.

No it's not up to me,. It's up to some people here who think that claimed DNA evidence of a passenger on flight 175 is evidence that flight 175 was identified to be the object that hit the tower. It's not.

You have our evidence, where is yours?

You've presented no evidence of anything let alone proof flight 175 was the object that hit the tower.

 

[Bell]

Apparently this thread is going nowhere but Zen asking to "Show the evidence".

Zen thinks there was some conspiracy on 9/11, for which - mind you - he has no evidence to show. Funny that.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Why do you conspiracy liars insist on using a plan that was rejected to support your fantasies?

Because there isn't a lack of these kinds of plans or nut jubs who come up with them these days.

Just a lack of enough sane people to reject such plans.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

The mods insist on preserving the distinction between the argument and the arguer. As has been pointed out several times, the argument, when shown to be devoid of substance, becomes the arguer. Gumboot laid out the evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that Flight 175 hit the South Tower. You have nothing that calls the evidence into question. If you are incapable of reasoning from a) an incident that causes air traffic control to lose contact with the flight crew, radar data that shows b) the plane's descent into NYC, c) the disappearance of the plane--apart from the WRECKAGE found at the crash site--from the planet, d) the deaths of all passengers and crew, e) the historical fact of a plane crashing into the South Tower at precisely the moment Flight 175 vanishes, to the conclusion that the plane that crashed was Flight 175, then the problem is you--you, the person. YOU--not the argument you are making, because you aren't making an argument. You are, in effect, saying that you are incapable of displaying the ability to think sequentially that distinguishes humans from other animals.

Your "argument" is nonexistent. You can't think.

I'm not the one making this about an attack on me. People like you are because you have no facts to address the op. Same as always.

 

[Slayhamlet]

One would have to see it in order to trust it. Except for some of the people here that is. Site the chain of custody. Get that?



Ok where is it for the 12 on flight 175?



geez come up with some evidence already or don't bother.

Stop playing the part of an idiot on an internet forum, where you will accomplish absolutely nothing outside of inducing strokes in rational people's brains from pure frustration at your obtuseness (I'm beginning to suspect that's your real goal), and start convincing the the family members of the victims that perished on flights 175 and 11 that their loved ones weren't in fact on those planes.

 

[apathoid]

There is no evidence of DNA just a claim.

Wow. You just believe whatever the heck you want to believe, doncha? You cannot even bring yourself to acknowledge the fact that the passengers were identifed. Whatever you have to tell yourself, zen....

No it's not up to me,. It's up to some people here who think that claimed DNA evidence of a passenger on flight 175 is evidence that flight 175 was identified to be the object that hit the tower. It's not.

OK, lets try it this way. Lets say you accept that the DNA identified the passengers...relax, it's just a hypothetical....what is it evidence of in your mind?

You've presented no evidence of anything let alone proof flight 175 was the object that hit the tower.

No evidence of anything? At the very least you have video of a 767 in United colors slamming into the WTC. Are there any other United 767's missing...or any 767s at all for that matter?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm always amused that truthers like ZEN insist that we provide documentation for things like "chain of custody", as if we're the ones with that information at our fingertips.

ZEN... It's up to you, the ones who are not content with the findings, to seek out this type of information. You truthers need to get your lazy, delusional asses in gear and start requesting this information from relevant sources, not individuals on an Internet forum.

It's been 6 years and you're still "just asking questions"... on the Internet...

We're not your enemy. Or do you really think that we have such power that we need to brought down? So what's the problem here? What are you afraid of?

 

[pomeroo]

Yes that was my point. Thank you. Now given that you understand at least some of that point. How is 12 DNA identified people from flight 175 proof that 175 hit the tower?

Please read this fool's post over and over until it becomes clear that the problem lies with the arguer, not the argument.

He asks how the presence at Ground Zero of DNA from passengers on Flight 175 shows how Flight 175 hit a building there.

Stop. Don't make this more complicated than it deserves to be. He is saying that HE ISN'T QUITE SURE WHY DNA OF PASSENGERS ON A PLANE THAT NO LONGER EXISTS FOUND AT THE SCENE OF A PLANE CRASH INDICATES THAT THE PLANE THEY WERE ON WAS THE ONE THAT CRASHED.

ZENSMACK is unimaginably stupid, or he is pretending to be. In either case, he calls to mind Thomas Paine's remark that arguing rationally with a stupid man is like giving medicine to the dead. Presenting evidence and having it reflexively dismissed by someone who can't comprehend its significance is not the same as engaging in an argument. It's asking for a critique of a painting by someone whose only thought is to use his butter knife to scrape off the paint.

 

[pomeroo]

Here's a question: If they were going to try to fool everyone into thinking the plane was flight 175, why not just use flight 175?

Shhhh! You're giving it away.

 

[pomeroo]

Because there isn't a lack of these kinds of plans or nut jubs who come up with them these days.

Just a lack of enough sane people to reject such plans.

To date, you conspiracy liars have produced one wacky plan and that one got rejected as wacky. That sounds like a rejection rate of 100%.

What else have you got?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

new law of physics everybody. Unless Zen is there to handle or witness something in person, it does not exist.

 

[gumboot]

So there was an incident and something happen on flight 175? How does that prove it’s what hit the tower?

The evidence collectively proves that. Pay attention.

I didn’t say there was no such thing as flight 175 or employees that worked on it. How does this prove it’s what hit the tower?

The evidence collectively proves that. Pay attention.

Changed twice? Why’s that? And how do you know they didn’t just start following a different object with a different transponder code at a different altitude? If anything its evidence that it’s not the same transponder code flight 175 started out with. This hurts your case.

No, it doesn't. Because the NY controllers were looking for AA11. They had their secondary radar turned on. A different object with a different transponder code at a different altitude would come up as a different return. Your above comment shows you do not know anything about ATC.

The laws of physics state that two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. An object occupying the same space and time as UA175 changed its transponder code twice. That object must be UA175.

I didn’t claim nothing happened to Flight 175.

I didn't say you did.

No it does not. They don’t track the plane by phone calls.
Yes your scenario is absurd.

The scenarios are not mine. They are the only possible explanations for your claims. I am glad we agree they are absurd. I don't know why you think I said they track aircraft via phone calls.

This is all debated and there is no DNA evidence of the hijackers claimed to be on flight 175. Besides even if they were on flight 175 this doesn’t prove it’s what hit the tower.

It's not all debated, actually. These are all facts, supported by substantial evidence. Financial receipts, bank transactions, surveillance footage, customs records, visa records, eye witness statements in several countries, statements from friends and family... these are only debated by people who want to play pretend. The real world has accepted the facts and moved on.

DNA evidence is not required to confirm the hijackers were on UA175. They boarded the flight. We have flight manifests and airport surveillance footage to confirm it (all hijackers were captured on video passing through the boarding gates except those on UA93).

It also matches the profile of other flights that day thought to be possible hijackings.

It doesn't, actually. The flight profiles for the various suspect hijackings (such as Delta 1989) were very different (no change of transponder, no deviation of flight path, no suspicious transmissions). Not to mention none of the other suspected hijackings vanished off the face of the earth.

It doesn’t prove it’s what hit the tower.

The evidence collectively proves that. Pay attention.

No it’s not. It’s an assumption.

No it’s not. It’s an assumption.

No it’s not. It’s an assumption.

The above are all responses to my examples of evidence that a United Airlines Boeing 767 hit WTC2 - those being eye witness testimony, video footage, and still photographs.

These are not "assumptions", zensmack89. They are facts. The aircraft in question, which was watched live by millions of people and captured on dozens of cameras, WAS a Boeing 767. It WAS in United Airlines livery. Those are not assumptions. They are indisputable facts.

Some of them might be but that’s not what I’m talking about.

This is not Ground Zero it’s an Airport. How hard would it be to get personal items from an airplane to an airport? Have you ever flown? Have they ever lost your luggage?

You believe the personal items and DNA of passengers is sitting in the hangar at Kennedy? Wow. Just wow.

This is not Ground Zero it’s a lab. Are you suggesting they did DNA testing and matching down at Ground Zero?

No, I believe they did DNA testing at a lab they established at Fresh Kills. But I could be wrong there.

The videos have been disputed as to what’s on them as well as the video validity and where they originated from. None of it is positive proof of what hit the tower or that the supposed hijackers could perform what is claimed.

I don't believe I ever claimed Osama Bin Laden's confession videos were evidence of the above. I can't understand why you would think I did. Do you actually read my posts?

I understand it’s not hard evidence. Nothing you’ve presented is hard evidence and most of it isn’t even relevant in any manner as to proving what hit the tower.

Hard evidence? Like rocks? Metal? Is that what you mean? As opposed to things like DNA or blankets, which I suppose would be "soft" evidence. How about lead? Would that be considered soft or hard?

Everything I have presented is indisputably factual. Collectively these facts prove beyond doubt that United Airlines Flight 175 hit WTC2. Your continued refusal to accept this reflects more about you than it does the real world.

-Gumboot

 

[pomeroo]

I'm not the one making this about an attack on me. People like you are because you have no facts to address the op. Same as always.

The facts are laid out under your nose. You are too obtuse to acknowledge them.

Flight 175 departed from Logan Airport in Boston.
An incident occurred causing air traffic control to lose radio contact.
A Boeing 767 crashed into the South Tower.
DNA tests matched evidence found at the crash site with DNA of some of the passengers on Flight 175.
The Boeing 767 that took off from Boston no longer exists.
All passengers and crew members on Flight 175 are dead.

What is your purpose in presenting yourself as a drooling moron? How can you advance your evil cause by making a laughingstock of yourself?

 

[NYCEMT86]

Wow, I can't ignore this thread anymore.


What about Pete Hanson, Brian David Sweeney, Garnet Bailey and Flight attendant Robert Fangman who all made phone calls from flight 175 to loved ones or others?


This sounds like another Loose Change theory like their theory on Flight 93.


Can you explain the fuselage, parts of an engine and landing gear of flight 175? You bring up Operation Northwoods, how were they able to plant evidence when thousands of people were around? Where are those 58 passengers now? Do you believe they would allow the government to hold them captive for 6 years now?


You claim that these pilots were amateur...can anybody answer this for me, how many flight hours must you log before you are qualified to get a commercial pilots license? My knowledge of flight is limited to layman, however most of the people who have posted in this thread ARE pilots, who know a thing or two about what you can or cant do in aircraft.


Zen, this a prime example of your Logorrhoea.


You should contact a local ATC and ask him or her how its possible to track a plane with its transponder shut off, because from my knowledge all it does is shut off the plane information but the radar continues to track its path, speed, and altitude such as any radar does. ATC aren't amateurs, they handles thousands of planes each day, I think they know what they are doing when tracking a plane and the process of elimination to properly identify Flight 175 even with its transponder off.