Flight 175 plane speed challenged

Have you any information that indicates the appropriate chain of custody was not maintained on anything lifted from Ground Zero?

Chain of custody is only one of many issues that zensmack is handwaving his way around by simply claiming "it wouldn't be difficult". I note now that he has refused for a third time to construct any scenario, even with his pick of "something else" and "somewhere else", that gets around this problem at all, let alone without difficulty.

Where is that troofer dictionary? I suspect that "it wouldn't be difficult" translates to "damned if I know".
 
You don't know what you're talking about. The above are not opinions or assertions. They are widely known facts. Your refusal to accept them says more about you than it does about the real world.

Have a good sleep.

-Gumboot


Good morning.

Yeah that's right Gum just like no one mistaked any of the flights for military aircraft. That's what you claimed last time you said I didn't know what I was talking about. To say they knew for sure what objects they were tracking is an opinion and a wrong one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_(aviation)
Operation
In flight a pilot is told to squawk a given code by air traffic control over the radio, such as in the phrase "Cessna 123AB, squawk 0363". The pilot inputs these digits and his blip on the radar becomes correctly associated with his identity.

Because primary radar gives position information but lacks altitude information, mode C and mode S transponders report altitude. Around busy airspace there is often a regulatory requirement that all aircraft be equipped with an altitude-reporting mode C or mode S transponder. In the United States, this is known as a Mode C veil. Mode S transponders are compatible with transmitting the mode C signal, hence no need for a separate designation. Without the altitude reporting, the controller cannot see any altitude information, and the controller must rely on the altitude as reported by the pilot. This has resulted in at least one accident. On 31 August, 1986, a Piper Archer with a pilot and two passengers had inadvertently penetrated the 6,000-foot floor of controlled airspace without a clearance and collided[1] with Aeromexico Flight 498, a DC-9 with 58 passengers and 6 crew at an altitude of 6,650 feet. The Archer had only mode A reporting capability and the controller assumed it was below the controlled airspace.


Secondary Surveillance Radar is referred to as "secondary", to distinguish it from the "primary radar" that works by passively bouncing a radio signal off the skin of the aircraft. Primary radar works best with large all-metal aircraft, but not so well on small, composite aircraft. Its range is also limited by terrain and rain or snow and also detects unwanted objects such as automobiles, hills and trees. Furthermore not all primary radars can estimate the altitude of an aircraft. Secondary radar overcomes these limitations but it depends on a transponder in the aircraft to respond to interrogations from the ground station to make the plane more visible and to report the aircraft's altitude.
 
As regards chain of custody (the correct term for the chain of evidence disputed here):

The process to protect the chain of custody of DNA samples is stressed in the documentation that outlines the difficulties involved in obtaining viable DNA samples from Ground Zero.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/214781_10.pdf
and
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/214781apph.pdf



Standard policies for chain of custody require that from the moment an item is lifted from a scene, it is documented, signed for and often transported in tamper-evident containers.

http://www.answers.com/topic/chain-of-custody


Have you any information that indicates the appropriate chain of custody was not maintained on anything lifted from Ground Zero?

Once again there is no proof they did. There is no way to verify how it got to the lab or where it was found especially if it is claimed to have been found somewhere like a landfill instead of groundzero and weeks or months later.

Besides this is not indentification of what hit the tower anyway you look at it.
 
No, it just demonstrates that you're merely engaged in "what if's" to support your crazy theory.



Then drop the CT, already.



Doesn't "prove" it but it is very strong evidence, especially when you factor in the REST of the evidence.



Zen, this is what's called unhealthy skepticism. Now you're just beign silly. Besides, I don't even have proof that you even exist, or that the universe really exists. Until you provide such proof, I don't have to read your posts !!!

And this is about the tenth time I've pointed out I don't need to present an alternative version of events or CT to point out the flaws and lack of evidence in your official CT.
 
There is no way to verify how it got to the lab or where it was found

If they followed proper standard protocols, then yes, there should be. Each item should be clearly documented and signed off for every step of it's journey from Ground Zero to the labs and beyond. Of course, this information may not yet be publicly accessible, but I haven't seen anyone question this aspect of the event, until now.

Besides this is not indentification of what hit the tower anyway you look at it.

If the DNA from a passenger who was documented getting on the plane, was uncovered at the Ground Zero site, how is this not evidence that the plane impacted the tower?
 
If they followed proper standard protocols, then yes, there should be. Each item should be clearly documented and signed off for every step of it's journey from Ground Zero to the labs and beyond. Of course, this information may not yet be publicly accessible, but I haven't seen anyone question this aspect of the event, until now.

Yes if. Site it. Point to it. They scooped debris up with back hoes threw it in a dump truck and brought it to a landfill. Do you think they were marking every bit of remains like in a crime scene exactly where it fell?

If the DNA from a passenger who was documented getting on the plane, was uncovered at the Ground Zero site, how is this not evidence that the plane impacted the tower?

This has been covered. Did they set up a lab at ground zero or did they bring it to a lab and match it with a family members DNA? How do you know who found it, where they found it, and how it got to the lab?

This is not identification of what hit the tower.
 
Yes if. Site it. Point to it. They scooped debris up with back hoes threw it in a dump truck and brought it to a landfill. Do you think they were marking every bit of remains like in a crime scene exactly where it fell?

I am not in America. Even if I was, I am not cleared to have access to this information. I don't believe that your assertion they just threw stuff in a dumper and dumped it willy-nilly on a rubbish tip is entirely true.

This has been covered. Did they set up a lab at ground zero or did they bring it to a lab and match it with a family members DNA? How do you know who found it, where they found it, and how it got to the lab?

This is not identification of what hit the tower.

This has been covered. I showed you documents that assert the importance of adhering to chain of custody protocols. This covers getting it from the site to labs.

I am sure that in another 30 years or so the right to access this information will allow you to confirm how far you are really stretching your doubts about the situation, if you honestly believe this CT scenario. At the moment, however, it is so easy for you and others to claim discrepencies in materials you have no hope of verifying. The fact that so many things are restricted to only those involved in the official investigations really seems to rankle with CTists. They seem to feel they should have unlimited access to paw their way through personal items, confidential information and secure documentation, just because they are asking questions. It doesn't work like that, but if it did, there would probably be fewer members of the TM.
 
Last edited:
And this is about the tenth time I've pointed out I don't need to present an alternative version of events or CT to point out the flaws and lack of evidence in your official CT.
Only problem is that all the flaws that you have pointed out have been non existant. Your arguments have been easily addressed.

And besides you are a hypocrite.

You have sourced the information you use for your arguments from websites also .

Your info is coming from web sites and not actual personal experiance with evidence and you say your info is valid and proven. Yet you discount any counter argument because the info used in the counter argument comes from a webpage and is not directly experianced.

Which would mean that you are appliying a double standard.

What makes your info any more valid that the information used by people here in countering your arguments?

You can't have it both ways.
 
Zen I'm sure you think you're being rhetorically clever. Sigh.

Even if they were able to test it at ground zero, and supplied you personally (why they would even give you the time of day, who knows?) with the names and addresses of each person involved in the transfer and testing of each individual sample, and gave you the computer print out of each test notarized and personally delivered by the lab worker who performed the test, etc...ANY OF THAT COULD BE FAKED!

You have just jeopardized every single conviction based on DNA evidence that has ever happened. Even more, just about every conviction based on any evidence that required a chain of custody ever. In history. Congratulations!

So, not talking specifically about you of course, but I suspect that one who thinks like this has carefully crafted a cool little woo woo circuit breaker that precludes one from having to accept any evidence that contradicts his conclusion.
 
And this is about the tenth time I've pointed out I don't need to present an alternative version of events or CT to point out the flaws and lack of evidence in your official CT.

But if you were being honest, you would note that there is no proof at all for an alternative version, by your own arguments.

When we get away from "proof" and into "evidence", we find evidence that is consistent with the official theory, and none that is inconsistent with it. Your OP tried to find some that is inconsistent with it, but it did not hold up (let alone hold up to your own demanding standards of proof). Quite simply, there is no evidence (let alone proof) that is inconsistent with the official story. You have not managed to point out flaws.

Your job, if you were serious, would be not to challenge the validity of accepted evidence, but to provide sound evidence that contradicts the official story. By your own logic, if you poke holes in the validity of the current evidence, you are not showing that the official story is false. You need to actually bring some evidence to bear that is inconsistent with the offical story.

Meanwhile, given evidence that is consistent with it, the official story remains considerably simpler than any conceivable alternative. I invite you (for a fourth time) to assume ANY "somewhere else" and ANY "something else" and come up with a plausible alternative that is simpler than the official story. You cannot.
 
Zen

You say video evidence is not proof or evidence but many people have been convicted in court by prosecutors using CCTV video evidence

They have also been convicted by DNA evidence

They have also been convicted by the use and movements of their mobile phones

They have also been convicted by eye witness testimony

This proves to you these types of evidence are acceptable

If you still dispute them then you are disputing every person who has ever been convicted using these techniques just because you have not seen the actual evidence or custody chain?

Is this correct?
 
I am not in America. Even if I was, I am not cleared to have access to this information. I don't believe that your assertion they just threw stuff in a dumper and dumped it willy-nilly on a rubbish tip is entirely true.



This has been covered. I showed you documents that assert the importance of adhering to chain of custody protocols. This covers getting it from the site to labs.

I wish I had found this earlier:

http://www.apwa.net/Publications/Re...AY=ISSUE&ISSUE_DATE=032004&ARTICLE_NUMBER=770

The disposal operations at the landfill were divided into two distinct operations: the unloading, stockpiling, separating and landfilling operations were under the direct control of the Department of Sanitation, and the sorting and investigative operations were under the direct control of the NYPD and the FBI.

Each load of material generated from Ground Zero was given a four-part disposal ticket for tracking purposes. A representative from the Army Corps of Engineers completed the required information at the loading site and indicated the disposal location for transport (for example, Pier 6, Pier 25, 59th MTS, Hamilton MTS, or the Fresh Kills Landfill). At the disposal location, two copies were given to the driver, one for the trucking firm and one for the contractor. The remaining copies were forwarded to the Department of Design and Construction for the reconciliation of loads.
 
Yes if. Site it. Point to it. They scooped debris up with back hoes threw it in a dump truck and brought it to a landfill. Do you think they were marking every bit of remains like in a crime scene exactly where it fell?



This has been covered. Did they set up a lab at ground zero or did they bring it to a lab and match it with a family members DNA? How do you know who found it, where they found it, and how it got to the lab?

This is not identification of what hit the tower.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/310/5751/1122
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?fe...-1-20070911-09372700-bc-us-sept11-remains.xml
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/news.php?id=16 (see the bottom of the page)
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/214781_4.pdf (this is from the government so you'll probably wave this off too)
http://www.thechief-leader.com/news/2006/1110/News/016.html
http://www.snesl.edu/pub_images/06b08d56312944b3aa396002a4f94cc6.pdf
http://www.jonhoyle.com/GeneCodes/LATimes.htm

These links describe how they collected and tested the DNA found at Ground Zero. All are from scientific sources and the media and are they independent from the govt. (except for one) and CT/OT sites.
They all say the same thing, the DNA of at least 40% of the passengers listed on the flights has been found at Ground Zero.

So how else other than being on a plane that crashed into the building did the DNA get there? If you say it could have been planted, or some other elaborate scheme, then you have to provide proof.
 
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/310/5751/1122
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?fe...-1-20070911-09372700-bc-us-sept11-remains.xml
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/news.php?id=16 (see the bottom of the page)
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/214781_4.pdf (this is from the government so you'll probably wave this off too)
http://www.thechief-leader.com/news/2006/1110/News/016.html
http://www.snesl.edu/pub_images/06b08d56312944b3aa396002a4f94cc6.pdf
http://www.jonhoyle.com/GeneCodes/LATimes.htm

These links describe how they collected and tested the DNA found at Ground Zero. All are from scientific sources and the media and are they independent from the govt. (except for one) and CT/OT sites.
They all say the same thing, the DNA of at least 40% of the passengers listed on the flights has been found at Ground Zero.

So how else other than being on a plane that crashed into the building did the DNA get there? If you say it could have been planted, or some other elaborate scheme, then you have to provide proof.

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.
 
Gumboot said:
UA175's transponder was never turned off, it simply changed code.

Or another planes transponder was thought to be a changed code of 175. You have no way of knowing.

Just like you have no way of knowing it wasn't santa claus, but it's useless to speculate about improbable scenarios.

Wow look at all those people who have provided absolutely no evidence as to what hit the tower.

What's your definition of "evidence" ?

Always difficult but not impossible

I see. Do you know what "reasonable doubt" means ?
 
Yeah, where's the PLANE'S DNA, huh? I won't believe any of this until they show me that! And only if they do it right there, at the site! With me, doing the analysis! With Dylan to cross-check the results! And even then, it's all fake, man![/zensmack]
 
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.

What tower? You haven't proved that there was a tower at all yet.

Dave
 

Back
Top Bottom