Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "C-SPAN"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
Try to do your homework a little better. He stated he ID'd most of the passengers based on DNA and teeth from100s of fragments of body parts, with the help of some of the countries top pathologists:
"Confident that Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller, with whom he had worked on several previous cases but nothing on this scale, would ask for his help, he started packing the forensics van. When the call did come, he was ready. Dirkmaat and Miller were the first civilians allowed at the scene.
There, they witnessed the crash crater where the larger pieces of the plane were buried in the dirt, widely scattered debris, and plumes of smoke radiating upward from burning trees. Dirkmaat spent two weeks at the scene, working both in the field and in the morgue. Remains of all the victims were ultimately identified, either through DNA, dental records, or fingerprints, and he’s proud that his work may have given the families some closure."
I just found this link in less than 5 minutes. Where were you, brainwashing yourself with 911 Truth sites perhaps?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnzarollin2749
-"mismatched upside down engine" If you can demonstrate the mismatch, please do so.
-"There would be luggage, seats, miles of wiring, tail section,...." Two points: if the impact is severe enough even the tail would be missing, witness PSA flight 1771. The other debris could well have been dug out of crater. You are conflating lack of pictures with lack of debris.
-"most all of the bodies" This reflects lack of familiarity with high speed impacts. Here is a passage from "The Electra Story": "The residue of flight 710 was something even the most veteran investigators had never come across before. There were no bodies."
-"Planes do not vaporize." It's a figure of speech. The official story is 90+% of plane buried in crater.
Another obvious example of what high speed impacts can do is staring us right in the face. Last year's 737Max crash in Ethiopia was remarkably similar. If you look at the pre-recovery photos, there is no visible plane.The official interim report notes that "Most of the wreckage was found buried in the ground..." Just like F93, and the aforementioned Northwest flight 710.
TWA 800 may or may not have been shot down, though from my perspective it's a thousand times more plausible than the idea of the US government targeting an empty field of grass in the middle of nowhere - a startlingly stupid hypothesis to any reasonable person using their brain. But the key difference is the cause of F93's demise was obvious - most of us figured it out before it even happened. Thus there was no need to reassemble it.
If you guys can at least get the basic facts right, there's a chance for a reasonable discussion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnzarollin2749 cont'd
-"No figure of speech cheech!" Misses the point since the official version of flight 93 is that they excavated all the wreckage. Are you claiming the NTSB excavated vapors?
-"Where did the NTSB rebuild and reassemble all the recovered debris?" Already dealt with that. It's pure myth that every wreck is reconstructed. Reconstruction is a useful tool when the exact cause of a crash is not immediately know. For examples, TWA 800, the early Comet crashes, Valujet, Swissair 111, and so on. You do not reconstruct crashes where the cause is known, witness PSA flight 182 in San Diego. Show me the reconstruction of that aircraft. Again, you fail at basic logic and critical thinking.
-"How did the alleged air to ground cell phone calls happen years before the technology existed" Wrong again. I personally called a telecommunications expert to discuss this. You might find that simply picking up the phone is more revealing than getting all your info from dedicated truth sites. He explained that back in 2001, when most cell phones were analog, they had a greater range than the more recent digital ones. A large 2004 IEEE Spectrum study also found that cell calls were connected at all phases of flight.
No offense or anything, but your latest post is a complete failure in every way. You don't know the facts, you make irrelevant points such as the engine was "recovered upside down," and you present modern and widely used DNA techniques as if they were a great mystery. What else can one say?
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnzarollin2749
"No human DNA was recovered here"
We've gone over this already. Why do you keep posting disinformation? Here are some snippets of many easily findable articles on line:
"It would be nearly an hour before Miller came upon his first trace of a body part. . . . . .Finally, some fragment of each of the dead had been positively identified, either by DNA or, in a few cases, fingerprints." -Washington Post, May 12, 2002
"We found personal effects for everyone, and at least a little human remains for each person. Everything that was positively identified was returned to the families," he [Miller] said. -Tragedy of flight 93, Toledo Blade, Sep 11, 2011
"From there, they will be transferred to the Armed Forces Laboratory at Dover, Del., part of a process in which the FBI has mandated DNA matches as final confirmation." -Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Sep 22, 2001
"Yesterday's confirmation of victims' identities by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology DNA lab in Rockville, Md., means that 34 of the 44 people who were aboard the jetliner crashed Sept. 11. have been identified."
"Searchers recovered about 510 pounds of human remains at the crash scene. . . . .75 to 100 specialists, including pathologists and fingerprint experts, are involved in the attempt to identify the remains. Forensic anthropologist Dennis Dirkmaat says that because the remains have suffered 'extreme fragmentation,' most will need to be identified using DNA analysis." see
http://162.243.41.32/context.jsp?item=a091301victimsidentified
Question: if all the bodies vaporized, how were investigators able to ID the victims? If you think the above information is false, do what any respectable research would do. Provide compelling evidence, just the way I have done. Then we can have a discussion on the validity of these reports.
cheers
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnzarollin2749 OK, next up: Impossible phone calls: the evidence
I’ve already gone there but you ignored it. So let's try again.
The primary case that cell calls at altitude were impossible in 2001 seems to come from a study done by AK Dewdney. He found that he was unable to get a connection above 8,000 ft.
But there exists a ton of other evidence contradicting this. So the first question I would ask is, have you made an attempt to look for other evidence? Since debunking sites are easily accessible, it doesn’t require a great deal of time to find them.
As mentioned earlier, I spoke to a telecom expert who told me that back in 2001, when most phones had analog back-up capability, the effective range was much greater than today’s cell phones, and in his opinion, it was far from impossible to get a connection from high up. I cannot offer you a proof of his words, but as I said, you can always do what I did and ask a telecom person, and see what they tell you. Pretty simple.
There are many other grounds to question your claim. Here are a bunch:
-The Dewdney calls were limited to one metropolitan area, not in rural areas where F93 was. Since there tend to be fewer base stations in low population areas, they tend to have a much greater power output, and thus a greater range. So cell calls limited to urban areas don’t provide a definitive answer to flight 93, which operated over rural areas.
-The IEEE Spetrum study was far larger than Dewdney’s. It involved multiple jetliners flying up and down the east coast of the US in the fall of 2003. It confirmed that on almost every flight some passengers were trying to use there cell phones, and calls were connected at all phases of flight. I also was curious about this. I called the lead author whose last name is Strauss, if memory serves, and he had no problem with the idea that on 9/11 it would have been possible to be connected at altitude and last long enough for a conversation to take place. You are also welcome to call him.
-"I would say that at the altitude for commercial airliners, around 30,000 or 35,000 feet, [some] phones would still get a signal . . .at some point above that-I would estimate in the 50,000-foot range-you would lose the signal." –Paul Guckian, vice president engineering at Qualcomm. (Quoted in Popular Mechanics book.)
-“Marco Thompson, president of the San Diego Telecom Council: ‘Cell phones are not designed to work on a plane. Although they do.’
-“Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles.” -NY Times
-Alex Graf of AT&T wrote that “from high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops.” (911myths site) Translation: not all calls are impossible or there would be no need to make these qualifications.
-While not exactly reliable, cell-phone calls from airplanes were possible in 2001-even from extremely high altitudes. Because cell sites have a range of several miles, even at 35,000 feet, that's entirely possible," says Rick Kemper, director of technology and security at the CTIA-The Wireless Association. -911myths site.
I am curious if you might be willing to admit the picture is not as black and white as you and many fellow skeptics believe. Or will you continue to just dismiss all the evidence you don't like?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1