Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The impossible GTE phone call of Peter Hanson (Flight 175)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-09 05:07 PM
Original message
The impossible GTE phone call of Peter Hanson (Flight 175)
Peter Hanson was a passenger on Flight 175. Just three minutes before the South Tower crash, he called his father:

At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter:

"It's getting bad, Dad -- A stewardess was stabbed -- They seem to have knives and Mace -- They said they have a bomb -- It's getting very bad on the plane -- Passengers are throwing up and getting sick -- The plane is making jerky movements -- I don't think the pilot is flying the plane -- I think we are going down -- I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building -- Don't worry, Dad -- If it happens, it'll be very fast -- My God, my God."

The call ended abruptly. Lee Hanson had heard a woman scream just before it cut off. He turned on a television, and in her home so did Louise Sweeney. Both then saw the second aircraft hit the World Trade Center.

At 9:03:11, United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower of the World Trade Center. All on board, along with an unknown number of people in the tower, were killed instantly.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronic...


The strange circumstances of this call have already been noticed by others: Hanson doesn't mention the steep dive the plane is making (5000 ft/minute); he doesn't recognize the New York skyline and still thinks the plane is westbound toward Chicago; etc, etc.

I'm not going to talk about these odditites. But there's a little additional problem: the call was made from an inbuilt GTE "airfone", and the time data are precise to the second:

30CDE 9:00:03 Peter Hanson Lee Hanson (father) 192 sec

http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00216.pdf

(kudos to Kevin Fenton for providing this material)

Okay. Let's do a little computing.

9:00:03 - begin of recorded phone call
9:03:15 - end of recorded phone call

The plane crashed into the South Tower at 9:03:11, 4 seconds before the call was finished.

Am I the only one who sees a problem here?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-09 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. What do you think could explain this oddity?
Edited on Mon Jan-19-09 05:27 PM by boloboffin
Why did the conspirators not add up the times and release a "correct" count?

Also, has Ms. Manners spoken on the subject of what you should mention to your family when calling from a hijacked aircraft?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BunnyBluetimes Donating Member (78 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-09 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'm surprised any air phone calls were made on 9/11
most terrorists wouldn't allow their hostages to move or talk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-09 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Ah, so you've got the Ms. Manners Book on How To Behave In Hijackings.
Could you provide a link to Amazon so we can all know what hijackers and hostages alike should have been doing? Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BunnyBluetimes Donating Member (78 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-09 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Terrorist Hijackers were flying the planes
so maybe "people were afraid to stop them" -> ;(couldn't move or talk). Pete could have snuck a call in, who knows, Im guessing here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrMickeysMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. I liked your other name better...
Of course, what you SAY sucks the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I don't care.
On either count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrMickeysMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Sure you do
That's why you keep coming back
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. See, that doesn't make sense.
The fact that I don't care about what you think about my name change or my posts here has nothing at all to do with my coming back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrMickeysMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. I don't even have to make this case, as you just did.
So, if you really don't care... then don't respond.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Oh, when you say, "coming back," you mean responding to your silly posts.
Pointing out how silly your posts are is something I do feel like doing. In that, you are correct.

But that isn't what you stated. You stated that you didn't like my name change, and you didn't like what I posted. Those are the two things I told you I didn't care about. And that still hasn't changed. And that's going to be true whether I respond or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrMickeysMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. I hope you find something else to interact with, BB
... we all need to reach out now and then, even through silly posts, but THIS is ridiculous. You really can't stop yourself, can you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-29-09 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
78. FBI has stated that there were NO PHONE CALLS ....!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-29-09 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. That is absolute bullshit, D&P...
absolute bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-09 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
5. Nice work Woody I Did a video a few months ago ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-09 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
6. Do you know the difference between "accurate" and "precise"? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 04:35 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. One of my favorite Wikipedia articles!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy

The article is entertaining, but one glance at the two targets will spot you the first thousand words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-09 01:58 AM
Response to Original message
7. "Hanson doesn't mention the steep dive..." "I think we are going down."
He must have been talking about oral sex?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 07:05 AM
Response to Reply #7
36. one would think if there was a steep dive
he wouldn't merely say "I think we are going down".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. Really, Spooked?
Edited on Mon Oct-26-09 08:16 AM by SDuderstadt
What do you think he SHOULD have said? "I think we are going down steeply"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. I think he would have been more sure about them going down
I also think if he was looking out the window, he would know they weren't going to Chicago
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-09 02:02 AM
Response to Original message
8. Here's an experiment for you to try on several different phone systems

Talk to someone on the phone.

Have them hang up the phone.

Measure the time from them hanging up until the call is actually disconnected.

Try it on a few different types of calls (land-land, land-mobile, mobile-mobile) and networks.

Let us know what you come up with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-09 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
9. I was just watching the inauguration
And clearly Barack Obama has not been sworn in -- it's impossible.

I had it on two television sets and streaming on the computer. All use the exact same feed -- AT&T's UVerse. Yet the little TV in the kitchen was two seconds ahead of my bedroom TV (both on the same exact channel!), and the computer was three seconds behind the bedroom TV (also streaming C-Span, which the other two TV's were tuned to).

Following the logic of the OP there is no other explanation but that the inauguration of Barack Obama was faked. Video analysis of the various angles will soon confirm this -- which angle was Barack actually facing? Did John Roberts know the fix was in and that's why he mangled the oath of office?

woody, please stop this foolishness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. The King of Dada

To link the Obama inauguration with a satellite call on 9/11 in order to insinuate paranoid perception of reality on my part is truely a piece of absurd art. Congratulations for this dadaistic exercise.

I've seen Obama's inauguration live and was moved by his speech, and I am still moved by the prompt turn back towards democracy he has already initiated with his first decisions. Just for the record.

Back to the GTE phone call. I'm not claiming it was faked. I presume that phone companies take care that the begin and duration of calls, especially satellite calls, are recorded and accounted accurately to the second. I also presume that Lee Hanson recognized his son's voice. I've chosen the term "impossible" to underline that the connection outlasted the impact into the South Tower, which I presume is impossible. The conclusion is simply that Peter Hanson was not sitting in the aircraft that hit the South Tower. But Peter Hanson was on the passenger list of Flight 175, and he himself reported he was on that plane. Which entails the corollary that Flight 175 was not the plane that hit the South Tower.

No faked Obamas, faked phone calls, faked video sequences necessary. But a plane swapping maneuver a la Operation Northwoods, based on a military hijack exercise. That's what it looks like.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. But there was five seconds difference between Obama swearing in on TV and on the computer
Obviously, by the same logic, Obama was not at the Capitol at that time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
20. kick...

...for anticipation of shocking news on Flight 175...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Theobald Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. The only thing shocking is that you are still at this.
Do you think that the medical examiner faked his dna testing that matched bodies found at the trade center to the passengers from flight 175?

Do you think that phone records are precise to JILA's strontium atomic clock or something similar? Do you really think four seconds is that far off to 'prove' that flight 175 didn't crash into the WTC? Do you think it's possible you are making a mountain out of a mole hill?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. "anticipation of shocking news on Flight 175"
:yoiks:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. well...Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh according to ACARS messages
Edited on Thu Oct-08-09 03:59 PM by Woody Box
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #25
37. yeah, funny how they ignore that
typical
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
21. Yes, dude....
you're the only one who sees a problem. Why would the GTE system taking four seconds to recognize that the call had been terminated on the other end seem so strange to you? it's concentrating on minutia like this that makes the so-called "truth movement" a laughingstock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
24. I see you have done a lot of CDR analysis in your day...
What do you work on, GR303 networks? SIP?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scrinmaster Donating Member (563 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
26. That doesn't make sense.
If you think that some part of the government orchestrated this, why wouldn't they get all of the details correct? "Dur, we're going to fake a telephone call from an airplane, but fuck up the timestamps so that some youtube sleuth can use it as evidence that we blew up the WTC with a space laser".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. The phone call was not faked

I fear you didn't understand me properly. Peter Hanson's phone call is apparently well documented in UAL and/or GTE/Verizon files, and certainly his father was able to identify his voice. The problem is that when he called, he was surely not aboard the plane that hit the South Tower.

You also misinterpretated me in a more general way. It is not necessary to assume that the government "orchestrated" the attacks in the sense that they planned every detail. It is much more likely that a little clique inside the military-industrial complex, including some members of the then government, took the ongoing military exercises (which included hijack simulations) and modified them just a little bit to perform the false-flag attacks. Their hope was that eventual discrepancies would not come to light. In the case of the telltaling ACARS messages, seven and half a year went by.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. "The problem is that when he called, he was surely not aboard the plane that hit the South Tower."
Dude, it's crap like this that renders you a laughingstock here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Theobald Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Tell that to Peter Hanson's Dad.
I'm sure he would love to here your nut ball theory that there were two flight 175's, that the plane his son was on did not actually hit the WTC, and that he is what? Alive someplace else or was killed at another time and location?

I usually get angry when I read some of the incredibly ludicrous crap that is pontificated here; but for some reason your paranoid fantasies make me want to cry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Hey

nut ball theory...incredible ludicrous crap...paranoid fantasies...

Get over it.

Can you tell me which plane received the following message at which time and at which place (roughly) before continuing with your rant?

DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R
.CHIAKUA DA 111323/ED
CMD
AN N612UA/GL PIT
- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
/BEWARE ANY COCKPIT INTROUSION: TWO AIRCAFT IN NY . HIT TRADE C
NTER BUILDS...
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111323 108575 0574
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 04:31 AM
Response to Reply #32
35. Nice work bro. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. There's a bigger problem...
it's the way CT's "think". EVERY large-scale, catastrophic event whill have anomalies, conflicting accounts and questions that can never be answered. The problem with CT's is that, rather than rely upon the physical evidence to establish the most likely explanations they, instead, seize upon every conflict, anomaly or missing piece of information and automatically interpret it as prove of their goofy theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. It is very interesting to me...
that they are so focused. They can sit there and debate a few seconds difference in a time stamp that is easily explained and extrapolate it into a full theory of fake planes, missile strikes, and demolitions teams. But the same people can't for the life of them pick up on the huge forest of evidence in front of them.

It is like they see a strand of grass likely blown into the forest and after careful examination conclude they are in an open field while failing to see the redwoods above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. I have a great way to describe....
"Forget the trees...they can't see the forest for the leaves!".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ryan_cats Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
30. Hmmmm, my computer has the exact time since my servers use NTP
Hmmmm, my computer has the exact time since it uses NTP. Yet when I walk into the lobby. the time is at least 2 minutes off.

I would hope both agencies use NTP but some don't since it can be a problem getting it to work through certain firewalls. Plus, this was 2001! You know, when a 2500 router was the shit and a T1 was light speed. Time change and so does technology!




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 07:09 AM
Response to Original message
38. I have always been confused by what exactly the passengers are seeing to say "oh my god" and scream
if they are looking out the side of the plane, they aren't going to see any imminent impact. They can't see where the plane is heading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #38
40. "Truther Logic"...
Edited on Mon Oct-26-09 08:19 AM by SDuderstadt
the passengers could not tell where the plane was headed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. I guess you haven't flown much as a passenger
what do you think he suddenly saw that made him say "oh my god"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. I fly a lot, dude...
Edited on Mon Oct-26-09 06:24 PM by SDuderstadt
what the fuck are you babbling about now? Here's my guess...I would think that maybe they can see that they are flying TOO FUCKING LOW. Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neily Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 02:41 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. Considering I have flown a lot... and...
Have had some mighty scary closed calls...

1) Have you flown into Tampa, FL. I used to do it quite frequently and it is one of the most scariest landings of all time. You feel like you are going to hit the water and the first time evokes quite a reaction, but you are forced to muffle the reaction because no one around you seems quite as scared.

2) I flew a prop jet in Florida once and everyone on board thought we were going to crash. It was so close that one lady began to pray out loud. People began to hush her cause they did not want to think negative thoughts.

3) I nearly crashed in Tijuana in 2008. We approached the runway and were so close to the buildings in the area that you felt as though you could touch them. Then, all of a sudden the pilot pulled up quickly, and diverted us to over the ocean. No one knew why, but we all knew that we had almost landed and then went 4 or 5 miles out over the ocean for some unknown reason. No one said a word to each other, until the end of the flight when we had touched down, I heard multiple people in multiple languages express gratitude.

As for flying too low, you would have to know the area and the normal flight path to know you were flying too low. If you were the average passenger, you wouldn't have a clue otherwise. Of course, a few hijackers on the plane would indicate somethings adrift.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. The flight path for an airport in NYC....
Edited on Tue Oct-27-09 09:45 AM by SDuderstadt
does not take you through Manhattan at building level. It's also clear that the passengers knew or at least suspected the hijackers were going to crash it into a building.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neily Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #46
48. Planes that entered the towers...
did not originate from New York airports. Granted there were many other indicators that something was wrong, namely hijackers aboard the plane. Regardless, if you are not used to flying into a NYC airport then you might just think they were landing at an airport to have their "demands met."

Needless to say, I don't think there is significance to the 4 second difference in clocks, because that's all I think it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. I didn't say they originated from NYC airports....
and I'm relatively sure that at least some passengers had heard through phone calls of the fate of the first flight to strike the towers. The NYC skyline is distinctive so I think it's fair to conclude at least some passengers realized where thet were and, given their low altitude, realized that something was very, very wrong.

In my opinion, it's focusing on matters like this that has marginalized the "truth movement".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neily Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #49
54. Originated or Destinated...
"The flight path for an airport in NYC....does not take you through Manhattan at building level."

Regardless, your post assumes that people are familiar with departing from or landing in a NYC airport. Considering they departed Boston, Logan AP, this is quite an assumption.

However, I agree the 2nd plane likely had some foreknowledge through the phone calls, etc. But, the first did not.

Since I think we are discussing the 2nd plane in the OP, it is safe to say some likely made phone calls within that short window of what 15 minutes? and discovered a plane was crashed into a building. Ok, semi-likely. Meaning, in those ensuing 15 minutes, many people didn't even know what hit the towers or thought it was an accident and they didn't know the plane that the previous plane was hijacked at that point. However, I will give you common sense on that one.

Regardless, I think it is safe to assume that they did not know the full details and did not know where they were headed. And, the whole Manhattan skyline "knowledge" assumption is pointless and assumes too much. I think the quick descent likely alerted them more than anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #54
55. I think the speed they were going and the altitude they were flying were....
Edited on Wed Oct-28-09 12:01 AM by SDuderstadt
dead giveaways. I cannot believe we are having this conversation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neily Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #55
58. Dead Give Aways... of?
Considering it had never happened before... what was it a dead give away for? I am not arguing that common sense likely told them something was wrong, i.e. they were crashing, etc... but to leap to the the fact they thought they would be crashing into a building is quite a convenient assumption on the passengers part (at least for the 1st 2 planes)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. Please continue this line of "reasoning."
If there was a group of posters here trying to portray the 9/11 Truth Movement as completely out to lunch, they could just hit cruise control when you and others pursue this incredible argument.

There is no better demonstration of the complete unreliability of your personal incredulity than this expression of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #58
61. Nevrmind....
seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #54
56. The 2nd plane had no foreknowledge
Edited on Wed Oct-28-09 12:28 AM by KDLarsen
However, the passenger whose call was put in doubt by the OP, made the suggestion himself that he thought they might fly to Chicago and crash into a building there.

The plane decended about 34,000 feet in about 7 minutes. That's a very fast decent and if the engines were at full throttle, the passengers most likely put two and two together and realised that they weren't going to land at an airport.

ETA: Barbara Olson appears to have been the first passenger to be told, that two planes had crashed into the WTC towers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 06:39 AM
Response to Reply #43
45. so you concede they wouldn't see precisely where they are heading
that's good.

They were diving for several minutes, and then all of a sudden, he sees that they are low? THAT is going to make him say "oh my god"? Why wouldn't he think they were going to land?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. This question is so stupid....
it needs no answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #45
50. Even the most novice flyer
realizes that you don't FUCKING LAND GOING 450 KNOTS!!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. "And, hey, is that a smoking WTC tower in the distance?"
Someone's personal incredulity needs to get a reality check.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. And my hat is off to both you and VVL for...
answering Spooked's stupid question, nonetheless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. "Truther Logic"....
Edited on Tue Oct-27-09 03:29 PM by SDuderstadt
"Damn...we're flying at building level in a major metropolitan area. Oh, wait...I can see the WTC belching smoke....damn...we're going hundreds of miles an hour...I guess we muct be landing".

If I were Spooked, I would be too embarrassed to show my face here for the next decade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 06:41 AM
Response to Reply #53
60. ha ha, you wish
the fact is, he wouldn't have been able to see the WTC on fire if they were heading straight for it

and if he saw it from a distance, then:
1) he probably not know what it means
2) they would be several seconds from impact and he would have said more

Lastly, I doubt he was in a position to judge the speed very well and it's not like they were imminently landing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #60
62. "Truther Logic"...
Edited on Wed Oct-28-09 09:03 AM by SDuderstadt
When an airliner is flying extremely low over an urban setting, passengers cannot look out the window and determine if they are going fast or slow.

And you guys can't figure out why we laugh at you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #62
69. First, I disagree that passengers in that situation could tell they were going too fast.
Second, I do not think he said "my god" because he saw an "urban setting" and realized they were going too fast. Looking out the side of the plane, according to the official story, he would have seen a second or two of buildings below, coming from the southern tip of Manhattan. There would be hardly any time to judge the speed.

Actually, here's something interesting I hadn't thought of before-- what about the high speed banking a few seconds before hitting? Wouldn't he have said something about the plane turning like that?

And who says I can't figure out why you supposedly laugh at me? I'm sure I know why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. Spooked....
it's posts like this that make me laugh at you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #60
63. Spooked does it seem odd that his DAD had time to turn on the TV and see....
Edited on Wed Oct-28-09 10:25 AM by lovepg
The plane crash? If the phone conversation ends 4 seconds after the crash time and it takes at least a few seconds to turn on a TV set...
I suppose our OCT friends will claim he meant the replay however that is not what the Dad stated. But that will surely be what he meant according to them. Just expect more snark. If there is an obvious problem with the 911 story they trot out you mean the conspiracy was so sloppy they could not get the phone logs right?
And other times claim that the people behind such a conspiracy so big could not be expected keep it all together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #63
64. Everything seems odd to you guys...
what you don't seem to click to is that you get tangled up in minutia that has little, if anything, to do with the substance of the occurrence.

You're talking like a "no-planer" even as you deny being one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #64
65. First of all you are not spooked. Second you do not have to be a no planer to wonder
how events in a timeline the official story established could be so far off.
As you may recall I wish another investigation. Its stuff like this that needs to be cleared up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #65
66. Dude...
Edited on Wed Oct-28-09 10:46 AM by SDuderstadt
read your post...you're questioning something that supposedly has an error range of four seconds...please.

Secondly, you're posting in an open forum. If you desire private conversation with Spooked, send him a PM. If you're not sure how to do that, I'm sure a moderator will be glad to help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #66
72. Rude I really have NO interest in a single thing you have to say.
Your posts are the most disgusting thing i have encountered since my sump pump backed up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #72
74. Oh; yeah....
They are far more disgusting than, say, claiming Peter Hanson faked his phone call from UA 175. Why, that's not disgusting at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. I am glad you agree. iTs the first time!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #63
67. yes, all good points
my guess is that Hanson was acting out as part of a hijacking exercise and they didn't cut him off in time. So the perps made a mistake. But they made lots of mistakes, all over, but they could get away with it because they could control the storyline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. Why don't you tell that to Hanson's....
Edited on Wed Oct-28-09 08:20 PM by SDuderstadt
dad, Spooked? Your goofy claims are now becoming even more offensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-30-09 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #68
80. If I could, I would
and your "rebuttals" are becoming more and more single-mindedly obtuse
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-30-09 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #80
81. What's stopping you, Spooked?
What are you waiting for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-30-09 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. why?
do you know his phone number?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-30-09 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #82
83. I'm sure you could locate him through a 9/11 victims family group....
C'mon, Spooked....why don't you call him and relay your revolting claim?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-31-09 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #83
84. I see no reason to go out of my way to do that.
Edited on Sat Oct-31-09 08:23 AM by spooked911
His dad must have his own doubts.

There is nothing "revolting" about questioning how someone died in an event like 9/11, especially given the overwhelming evidence of an inside job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HannibalCards Donating Member (222 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-31-09 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #84
85. If his dad has doubts
and the evidence is so overwhelming, why isn't he questioning, raising hell about it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #67
71. Hey, I've got a great idea.....
Edited on Wed Oct-28-09 09:07 PM by SDuderstadt
since you, Woody and lovepg are such aces with questions about time, maybe you could form a special task force or something.

This Sunday at 2 AM, nearly every state will gain an hour as we go off DST. Where did that extra hour come from? Don't you find it odd? I mean, if you're this concerned about 4 seconds, shouldn't you be that much more concerned about a whole hour?

Let us know what you find. I won't be able to sleep until I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #71
73. Snarkgas. avoid.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #73
75. Well, thanks for labeling your post so clearly in the subject line...
dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. Not worth your time snark gas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
57. delete
Edited on Wed Oct-28-09 01:24 AM by lovepg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 25th 2017, 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC