Debate #7

Income Tax

go!

I believe that everyone should pay their fair share....emphasis on the word fair

it is a travesty that some think you should pay a much higher percentage of your income just because you have worked hard to earn more....i get it...libs want to punish people for their success and want to make everyone completely dependent on the gov't but that is NOT how it should be
 

Thor4140

EOG Dedicated
Re: Debate #7

i never saw a person in my life that wanted to stay poor to pay less taxes. Oh and that tired old line u used about libs is just utter garbage
 
Re: Debate #7

The 16th amendment needs to be repealed and federal spending needs to be cut back to the federal government's constitutionally mandated limits.
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Debate #7


The current income tax which was implemented in 1913 via the 16th amendment :

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

is now so entrenched that it will be difficult to effect major changes easily.​

Ideally IMO a flat 10% tax on everyone across the board would be the cost of doing business as a US citizen/resident.​

No loopholes,exemptions,arcane tax code,deductions,or any other trickswould be allowed.​

Right now there's so many shelters and strategies available to certain individuals and corporations which reduces the tax liabilty for a few drastically.​

The biggest problem in dismantling the current tax-bureaucracy is how to do it gradually enough so people currently working in this field [CPA's,financial advisers,IRS etc.]don't lose their livelihood,a reformed tax collection process would therefore have to be phased in gradually,to benefit everyone eventually.​
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Debate #7

Scrimmage, what would be the problem with repealing the 16th and replacing with nothing?

Well the 16th amendment encoded the Federal government the right to collect taxes and do with them as they decide,it's not the best thing,but has been constitutional law for 82 years now.
Repealing an amendment would require another amnedment as the 21st did the 18th,so this would be a difficult process.
The 16th amenment would have to be replaced with something.
Paying taxes is not something we enjoy,but financing the federal government to do certain things like national defense,buiding highways,some social programs is going to continue.
Reforming the tax collection process,streamlining it,and getting a fair share from all is a more realistic goal,as the governement is not going to put itself out of business at this point anytime soon.
 
Re: Debate #7

Well the 16th amendment encoded the Federal government the right to collect taxes and do with them as they decide,it's not the best thing,but has been constitutional law for 82 years now.
Repealing an amendment would require another amnedment as the 21st did the 18th,so this would be a difficult process.
The 16th amenment would have to be replaced with something.
Paying taxes is not something we enjoy,but financing the federal government to do certain things like national defense,buiding highways,some social programs is going to continue.
Reforming the tax collection process,streamlining it,and getting a fair share from all is a more realistic goal,as the governement is not going to put itself out of business at this point anytime soon.

Scrimmage, you do understand that Income Taxes are not the largest form of revenue for the federal government?
 
Re: Debate #7

Repeal the 16th Amendment


It is time to repeal the 16th Amendment, the constitutional provision that authorizes the federal income tax. As its critics predicted when the amendment was passed in 1913, the income tax has become "a terror and torment to the honest citizen." It is absurdly complicated, inefficient and intrusive. Overzealous bureaucrats and politicians frequently abuse it.

The income tax has another major fault: It undermines the Constitution's arrangements for limiting government. The Internal Revenue Service simply has no proper place in our constitutional system.

The Founders who designed our Constitution sought to balance the power of the federal government against the states in order to keep both in check. The national government was thus originally prohibited from collecting taxes from individuals. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution states: "No capitation, or other direct Tax, shall be laid unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration." This meant that the federal government could collect revenue from the states according to population, but had to leave the methods of collection to them. The federal government was to collect revenue in other, less intrusive ways (tariffs, excise taxes, consumption taxes) so as to limit the amount of money it could raise by its own authority.

For many of the Founders, the very idea of taxing individuals (as opposed to objects, as with a sales tax) was highly offensive. These "capitations" or "head taxes" were regarded as options of last resort, only to be imposed in war or other emergency. The first federal income tax was imposed during the Civil War; it was soon repealed. Not until the 1890s did Congress assess a peacetime income tax. The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1895. Referring to the explicit prohibition against direct taxation in Article I, the court argued that the income tax would excessively enhance federal power in relation to state power.

The court explained that the rule against direct federal taxation was intended to "promote prudence and economy in expenditure," and, quoting Alexander Hamilton, to ensure that "the abuse of this power of taxation [would be] provided against with guarded circumspection."

The Supreme Court's ruling was nullified when an overwhelming majority in Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures ratified the 16th Amendment. The votes came amid a frenzy of "soak the rich" rhetoric, which overwhelmed considerations of broader constitutional interests. But experience has taught us that the rich are hard to tax, because it is easy for them to put their money where it does not yield much income. Anyway, most of the money in America belongs to the middle class. Lacking access to sophisticated shelters, we are easy to tax.

Although the first income tax in 1913 was very limited--it applied to just 2% of the labor force, and its highest rate was 7%--it prepared the way for the federal government's almost unlimited access to revenue. It thus provided an almost unlimited ability to fund programs that are properly state matters--crime fighting, education, welfare--and to pressure the states into conforming to a national standard in matters that should reflect regional differentiation, like speed limits and drinking ages.

The new welfare block grants to states are certainly a step in the right direction of getting the federal government out of the business of making everything its business. But wouldn't it be better just to keep all that money in the states in the first place? The federal government collected more than $600 billion in personal incomes taxes in 1996--about half its total revenue-but it spent more than that on welfare, health, education, transportation and housing programs. All these matters properly should be left to the states.

Repealing the income tax would still leave many areas in which the federal government could collect revenue for its proper functions, like defense, while limiting its ability to overreach.

The Claremont Institute - Repeal the 16th Amendment
 
Re: Debate #7

Realistically, you are probably correct Scrimmage; we Americans love our government handouts. . . .However, without the handouts, consider whether the federal government could support its CONSTITUTIONAL duties without levying and income tax; after all, they did fairly well until the 16th amendment, including financing numerous wars, amongst them the Civil War. . . .
 
Re: Debate #7

Pay As You Go!! Therefore, you elect your officials and they're SUPPOSED to take your money and take care of your interests!! Therefore, I'm not opposed to paying higher taxes as long as the government is serving my needs!! I feel GROSSLY unrepresented the last 8 years, however!!
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Debate #7

Scrimmage, you do understand that Income Taxes are not the largest form of revenue for the federal government?

Realistically, you are probably correct Scrimmage; we Americans love our government handouts. . . .However, without the handouts, consider whether the federal government could support its CONSTITUTIONAL duties without levying and income tax; after all, they did fairly well until the 16th amendment, including financing numerous wars, amongst them the Civil War. . . .

Dawg, this table [from - Government Taxes and Revenue in United States 1902-2013 - Federal State Local Charts ]seems to suggest Income taxes are the largest form of revenue:
<TABLE id=usgs303 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD width="17%"><FORM>
<INPUT onclick="getAjaxUnits('usgs302','2008','1','','b','fy09')" type=radio CHECKED value=b name=selUnit ?>$ billion
<INPUT onclick="getAjaxUnits('usgs302','2008','1','','m','fy09')" type=radio value=m name=selUnit ?>$ million
<INPUT onclick="getAjaxUnits('usgs302','2008','1','','p','fy09')" type=radio value=p name=selUnit ?>percent GDP</FORM>


<TD class=tit align=middle width="66%">United States Federal, State,
and Local Government Revenue
< prev Fiscal Year 2008 next >
Amounts in $ billion


<TD style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-STYLE: italic" align=right width="17%">GDP: $14,311.5
billion


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE id=usgs342><TBODY><TR class=head><TD class=lblhead width="8%"><TD class=lblhead width="37%"><TD class=sphead width="8%">Fed <TD class=sphead width="8%">Gov.
Xfer


<TD class=sphead width="8%">State <TD class=sphead width="8%">Local <TD class=sphead width="8%">Total <TD class=sphead width="1%">clk <TR class=tier id=usgs30210><TD class=lbltier colSpan=2>[+] Income Taxes <TD class=sptierb>1,565.0 <TD class=sptier>0.0 <TD class=sptierg>310.6 <TD class=sptierg>30.4 <TD class=sptierg>1,906.0 <TD class=sptierg> <TR class=tiere id=usgs30230><TD class=lbltier colSpan=2>[+] Social Insurance Tax <TD class=sptierb>908.1 <TD class=sptier>0.0 <TD class=sptierg>111.1 <TD class=sptierg>8.3 <TD class=sptierg>1,027.5 <TD class=sptierg> <TR class=tier id=usgs30240><TD class=lbltier colSpan=2>[+] Excise & Sales Tax <TD class=sptierb>68.8 <TD class=sptier>0.0 <TD class=sptierg>426.7 <TD class=sptierg>495.1 <TD class=sptierg>990.6 <TD class=sptierg> <TR class=tiere id=usgs30250><TD class=lbltier colSpan=2>[+] Fees and Charges <TD class=sptier>0.0 <TD class=sptier>0.0 <TD class=sptierg>150.7 <TD class=sptierg>226.8 <TD class=sptierg>377.5 <TD class=sptierg> <TR class=tier id=usgs30260><TD class=lbltier colSpan=2>[+] Business & Other Revenue <TD class=sptierb>-0.0 <TD class=sptier>0.0 <TD class=sptierg>118.9 <TD class=sptierg>129.4 <TD class=sptierg>248.3 <TD class=sptierg> <TR class=tiere id=usgs302E0><TD class=lbltier colSpan=2>[+] Balance <TD class=sptierb>-20.8 <TD class=sptier>0.0 <TD class=sptierg>226.4 <TD class=sptierg>85.2 <TD class=sptierg>290.8 <TD class=sptierg> <TR class=tier id=usgs302F0><TD class=lbltier colSpan=2>[+] Total Revenue <TD class=sptierb>2,521.2 <TD class=sptier>0.0 <TD class=sptierg>1,344.5 <TD class=sptierg>975.2 <TD class=sptierg>4,840.8 <TD class=sptierg> <TR class=foot><TD class=lblhead><TD class=lblhead style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">Click for Bar Chart or Pie Chart -> <TD class=sptier> <TD class=sptier><TD class=sptier> <TD class=sptier> <TD class=sptier> <TD class=sptier><TR class=foot><TD class=lblhead colSpan=8>Key: guesstimated[/b] ? using federal <SELECT id=selFy onchange="getAjaxFy('usgs302','1','','b','2008')"><OPTION value=fy05>fy05</OPTION><OPTION value=fy06>fy06</OPTION><OPTION value=fy07>fy07</OPTION><OPTION value=fy08>fy08</OPTION><OPTION value=fy09 selected>fy09</OPTION></SELECT> budget</SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



<HR>
<!-- Insert article body before here -->The table shows overall government receipts?federal revenue, state revenue, and local revenue?in the United States of America for all levels of government for the specified fiscal year. Revenue totals are aggregated for each major source of revenue.

4625,
One way or another any government spending gets paid for by the citizens,twas ever thus.
 
Re: Debate #7

<TABLE id=HB_Mail_Container height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0 UNSELECTABLE="on"><TBODY><TR height="100%" width="100%" UNSELECTABLE="on"><TD id=HB_Focus_Element vAlign=top width="100%" background="" height=250 UNSELECTABLE="off">another good issue.
if we have to have income tax...then a flat % would be best.
the rich would still pay more because they have more and that would make some on the "left" happy.

bottom line it is unfair to tax someone more because they make more.

what i don't really get....why is commission and bonuses taxed at a higher rate 42%.

see 4625...as scary as it is to you ....we agree on much
</TD></TR><TR UNSELECTABLE="on" hb_tag="1"><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 1pt" height=1 UNSELECTABLE="on">
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 
Re: Debate #7

Not scary, I'm Libertarian, which has much crossover with traditional Republican values; though the current manifestation that calls itself the Republican Party has strayed from its roots.
 

DimeDR

Banned
Re: Debate #7

from what i have learned there is no law saying we are required to pay fed income tax, but 10% would solve a lot of issues, but more than that, cutting the waste, graft and scams out of the gov would solve it all
 

ArchieBunker

EOG Dedicated
Re: Debate #7

<TABLE class=tborder id=post1222418 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=thead style="BORDER-RIGHT: #2b295e 0px solid; BORDER-TOP: #2b295e 1px solid; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; BORDER-LEFT: #2b295e 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #2b295e 1px solid"> 05-29-08, 10:47 PM </TD><TD class=thead style="BORDER-RIGHT: #2b295e 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #2b295e 1px solid; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; BORDER-LEFT: #2b295e 0px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #2b295e 1px solid" align=right> #14 (permalink) </TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #2b295e 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #2b295e 0px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #2b295e 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #2b295e 0px solid" width=175><!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->DimeDR<!-- google_ad_section_end --><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_1222418", true); </SCRIPT>
EOG Veteran



Join Date: Mar 23, 2008
Posts: 1,169


</TD><TD class=alt1 id=td_post_1222418 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #2b295e 1px solid"> <!-- google_ad_section_start -->Re: Debate #7<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
<HR style="COLOR: #2b295e" SIZE=1><!-- google_ad_section_start -->from what i have learned there is no law saying we are required to pay fed income tax,
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I'm sure Wesley Snipes will be glad to hear this.
 
Re: Debate #7

The United States of America survived, and in fact THRIVED, from 1787 until 1913 with NO income tax. It could do so again.
 
Re: Debate #7

a few statistics:

the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.54% of all federal income taxes
the top 5% of wage earners pay 54.36% of all federal income taxes

the bottom 50% of wage earners are only paying around 3.5% of all federal income taxes
 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Debate #7

I can guarantee based on your LUNACY on all topics you deft
dont have to worry about paying taxes ....
 

DimeDR

Banned
Re: Debate #7

tar baby

dont mock others for not debating, i have asked you questions and you duck and jive and run, go back and check :)
 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Debate #7

Tar .... it must be a rough road

Dirty is gone and BatemanPatrick is history


Backups:


Mr Merlin
Archie Bunker
Nicolas
Ktb Krusher


NOT EXACTLY THE FEARSOME FOURSOME !!!
 
Re: Debate #7

what questions? the ones about the 9-11 conspiracy theories? the flight manifests? the black box recorder? I can't explain all that but of course I dont have the "proof" in my hands to examine either so I go off of what I saw on 9-11 and i think it was a terrorist attack and not something planned and implemented by Bush

......*waits for the "sheep" comments*.....:)
 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Debate #7

Simple questions:

1) How did #7 drop when no plane hit that buildling?

2) Where is the commercial airline jet that hit the Pentagon? ... No tails, wing section or damage to the front lawn of the Pentagon?

3) How did cell calls get connected from heights of 30,000 feet that day
when the technology did not exsist until 2004?

3 SIMPLE QUESTIONS ... AGAIN ... WHERE IS THE PLANE THAT HIT
THE PENTAGON?
 
Re: Debate #7

1. this is what I believe because it makes the most sense to me (from popular mechanics):
any conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

2.again from popular mechanics:
When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide — not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

3. as far as the cell phones go i think a few of the calls were made on the airphones and it was possible to connect a call from the air with a cell phone in 2001
 

DimeDR

Banned
tar baby

tar baby

:LMAO :LMAO :LMAO PM:LMAO :LMAO :LMAO

who woulda guessed from a cat licker kid :houra
 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Debate #7

Popular Mechanics? Why not reference the Limbaugh Chronicles
as Chertoff's Nephew was the damn editor!!!

===================

as far as the cell phones go i think a few of the calls were made on the airphones and it was possible to connect a call from the air with a cell phone in 2001

REALLY?

Expert opinion within the wireless telecom industry casts serious doubt on "the findings" of the 9/11 Commission. According to Alexa Graf, a spokesman of AT&T, commenting in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks:
"it was almost a fluke that the [9/11] calls reached their destinations... From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude"( Final Contact )
New Wireless Technology
While serious doubts regarding the cell calls were expressed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, a new landmark in the wireless telecom industry has further contributed to upsetting the Commission's credibility. Within days of the release of the 9/11 Commission Report in July, American Airlines and Qualcomm, proudly announced the development of a new wireless technology --which will at some future date allow airline passengers using their cell phones to contact family and friends from a commercial aircraft (no doubt at a special rate aerial roaming charge) (see Qualcomm Press Center- American Airlines and Qualcomm Complete Test Flight to Evaluate In-Cabin Mobile Phone Use )
"Travelers could be talking on their personal cellphones as early as 2006. Earlier this month [July 2004], American Airlines conducted a trial run on a modified aircraft that permitted cell phone calls." (WP, July 27, 2004)
Aviation Week (07/20/04) described this new technology in an authoritative report published in July 2004:
"Qualcomm and American Airlines are exploring [July 2004] ways for passengers to use commercial cell phones inflight for air-to-ground communication. In a recent 2-hr. proof-of-concept flight, representatives from government and the media used commercial Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) third-generation cell phones to place and receive calls and text messages from friends on the ground.
For the test flight from Dallas-Fort Worth, the aircraft was equipped with an antenna in the front and rear of the cabin to transmit cell phone calls to a small in-cabin CDMA cellular base station. This "pico cell" transmitted cell phone calls from the aircraft via a Globalstar satellite to the worldwide terrestrial phone network"
Needless to say, neither the service, nor the "third generation" hardware, nor the "Picco cell" CDMA base station inside the cabin (which so to speak mimics a cell phone communication tower inside the plane) were available on the morning of September 11, 2001.
The 911 Commission points to the clarity and detail of these telephone conversations.
In substance, the Aviation Week report creates yet another embarrassing hitch in the official story.
The untimely July American Airlines / Qualcomm announcement acted as a cold shower. Barely acknowledged in press reports, it confirms that the Bush administration had embroidered the cell phone narrative (similar to what they did with WMDs) and that the 9/11 Commission's account was either flawed or grossly exaggerated.
Altitude and Cellphone Transmission
According to industry experts, the crucial link in wireless cell phone transmission from an aircraft is altitude. Beyond a certain altitude which is usually reached within a few minutes after takeoff, cell phone calls are no longer possible.
In other words, given the wireless technology available on September 11 2001, these cell calls could not have been placed from high altitude.
The only way passengers could have got through to family and friends using their cell phones, is if the planes were flying below 8000 feet. Yet even at low altitude, below 8000 feet, cell phone communication is of poor quality.
The crucial question: at what altitude were the planes traveling, when the calls were placed?
While the information provided by the Commission is scanty, the Report's timeline does not suggest that the planes were consistently traveling at low altitude. In fact the Report confirms that a fair number of the cell phone calls were placed while the plane was traveling at altitudes above 8000 feet, which is considered as the cutoff altitude for cell phone transmission.
Let us review the timeline of these calls in relation to the information provided by the Report on flight paths and altitude.
United Airlines Flight 175
United Airlines Flight 175 departed for Los Angeles at 8:00:
"It pushed back from its gate at 7:58 and departed Logan Airport at 8:14."
The Report confirms that by 8:33, "it had reached its assigned cruising altitude of 31,000 feet." According to the Report, it maintained this cruising altitude until 8.51, when it "deviated from its assigned altitude":
"The first operational evidence that something was abnormal on United 175 came at 8:47, when the aircraft changed beacon codes twice within a minute. At 8:51, the flight deviated from its assigned altitude, and a minute later New York air traffic controllers began repeatedly and unsuccessfully trying to contact it."
And one minute later at 8.52, Lee Hanson receives a call from his son Peter.
[Flight UAL 175] "At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: ?I think they?ve taken over the cockpit?An attendant has been stabbed? and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines?Tell them it?s Flight 175, Boston to LA.
Press reports confirm that Peter Hanson was using his cell (i.e it was not an air phone). Unless the plane had suddenly nose-dived, the plane was still at high altitude at 8.52. (Moreover, Hanson's call could have been initiated at least a minute prior to his father Lee Hanson picking up the phone.)
Another call was received at 8.52 (one minute after it deviated from its assigned altitude of 31,000 feet). The Report does not say whether this is an air phone or a cell phone call:
Also at 8:52, a male flight attendant called a United office in San Francisco, reaching Marc Policastro. The flight attendant reported that the flight had been hijacked, both pilots had been killed, a flight attendant had been stabbed, and the hijackers were probably flying the plane. The call lasted about two minutes, after which Policastro and a colleague tried unsuccessfully to contact the flight.
It is not clear whether this was a call to Policastro's cell phone or to the UAL switchboard.
At 8:58, UAL 175 "took a heading toward New York City.":
"At 8:59, Flight 175 passenger Brian David Sweeney tried to call his wife, Julie. He left a message on their home answering machine that the plane had been hijacked. He then called his mother, Louise Sweeney, told her the flight had been hijacked, and added that the passengers were thinking about storming the cockpit to take control of the plane away from the hijackers.
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.50 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."
American Airlines Flight 77
American Airlines Flight 77 was scheduled to depart from Washington Dulles for Los Angeles at 8:10... "At 8:46, the flight reached its assigned cruising altitude of 35,000 feet."
At 8:51, American 77 transmitted its last routine radio communication. The hijacking began between 8:51 and 8:54. As on American 11 and United 175, the hijackers used knives (reported by one passenger) and moved all the passengers (and possibly crew) to the rear of the aircraft (reported by one flight attendant and one passenger). Unlike the earlier flights, the Flight 77 hijackers were reported by a passenger to have box cutters. Finally, a passenger reported that an announcement had been made by the ?pilot? that the plane had been hijacked....
On flight AA 77, which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon, the transponder was turned off at 8:56am; the recorded altitude at the time the transponder was turned off is not mentioned. According to the Commission's Report, cell calls started 16 minutes later, at 9:12am, twenty minutes before it (allegedly) crashed into the Pentagon at 9.32am:
" [at 9.12] Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane."
According to the Report, when the autopilot was disengaged at 9:29am, the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and some 38 miles west of the Pentagon. This happened two minutes before the crash.
Most of the calls on Flight 77 were placed between 9.12am and 9.26am, prior to the disengagement of automatic piloting at 9.29am. The plane could indeed have been traveling at either a higher or a lower altitude to that reached at 9.29. Yet, at the same time there is no indication in the Report that the plane had been traveling below the 7000 feet level, which it reached at 9.29am.
At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States. [using an airphone]
(Report p 7, see http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf )
United Airlines Flight 93
UAL flight 93 was the only one of the four planes that, according to the official story, did not crash into a building. Flight 93 passengers, apparently: "alerted through phone calls, attempted to subdue the hijackers. and the hijackers crashed the plane [in Pennsylvania] to prevent the passengers gaining control." ( United Airlines Flight 93 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). Another version of events, was that UAL 93 was shot down.
According to the Commission's account:
"the first 46 minutes of Flight 93?s cross-country trip proceeded routinely. Radio communications from the plane were normal. Heading, speed, and altitude ran according to plan. At 9:24, Ballinger?s warning to United 93 was received in the cockpit. Within two minutes, at 9:26, the pilot, Jason Dahl, responded with a note of puzzlement: ?Ed, confirm latest mssg plz?Jason.?70 The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds into the descent, the FAA?s air traffic control center in Cleveland received the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft...."
At least ten cell calls are reported to have taken place on flight 93.
The Report confirms that passengers started placing calls with cell and air phones shortly after 9.32am, four minutes after the Report's confirmation of the plane's attitude of 35,000 feet. In other words, the calls started some 9 minutes before the Cleveland Center lost UAL 93?s transponder signal (9.41) and approximately 30 minutes before the crash in Pennsylvania (10.03)
"At 9:41, Cleveland Center lost United 93?s transponder signal. The controller located it on primary radar, matched its position with visual sightings from other aircraft, and tracked the flight as it turned east, then south.164 "
This suggests that the altitude was known to air traffic control up until the time when the transponder signal was lost by the Cleveland Center. (Radar and visual sightings provided information on its flight path from 9.41 to 10.03.)
Moreover, there was no indication from the Report that the aircraft had swooped down to a lower level of altitude, apart from the 700 feet drop recorded at 9.28. from a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet:
"At 9:32, a hijacker, probably Jarrah, made or attempted to make the following announcement to the passengers of Flight 93:?Ladies and Gentlemen: Here the captain, please sit down keep remaining sitting.
We have a bomb on board. So, sit.? The flight data recorder (also recovered) indicates that Jarrah then instructed the plane?s autopilot to turn the aircraft around and head east. The cockpit voice recorder data indicate that a woman, most likely a flight attendant, was being held captive in the cockpit. She struggled with one of the hijackers who killed or otherwise silenced her.
Shortly thereafter, the passengers and flight crew began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones. These calls between family, friends, and colleagues took place until the end of the flight and provided those on the ground with firsthand accounts. They enabled the passengers to gain critical information, including the news that two aircraft had slammed into the World Trade Center.77...At least two callers from the flight reported that the hijackers knew that passengers were making calls but did not seem to care.
The hijackers were wearing red bandanas, and they forced the passengers to the back of the aircraft.80 Callers reported that a passenger had been stabbed and that two people were lying on the floor of the cabin, injured or dead?possibly the captain and first officer. One caller reported that a flight attendant had been killed.81 One of the callers from United 93 also reported that he thought the hijackers might possess a gun. But none of the other callers reported the presence of a firearm. One recipient of a call from the aircraft recounted specifically asking her caller whether the hijackers had guns.
The passenger replied that he did not see one. No evidence of firearms or of their identifiable remains was found at the aircraft?s crash site, and the cockpit voice recorder gives no indication of a gun being fired or mentioned at any time.
We believe that if the hijackers had possessed a gun, they would have used it in the flight?s last minutes as the passengers fought back.82 Passengers on three flights reported the hijackers? claim of having a bomb. The FBI told us they found no trace of explosives at the crash sites. One of the passengers who mentioned a bomb expressed his belief that it was not real. Lacking any evidence that the hijackers attempted to smuggle such illegal items past the security screening checkpoints, we believe the bombs were probably fake. During at least five of the passengers? phone calls, information was shared about the attacks that had occurred earlier that morning at the World Trade Center. Five calls described the intent of passengers and surviving crew members to revolt against the hijackers. According to one call, they voted on whether to rush the terrorists in an attempt to retake the plane. They decided, and acted. At 9:57, the passenger assault began. Several passengers had terminated phone calls with loved ones in order to join the revolt. One of the callers ended her message as follows:
?Everyone?s running up to first class. I?ve got to go. Bye.? The cockpit voice recorder captured the sounds of the passenger assault muffled by the intervening cockpit door. Some family members who listened to the recording report that they can hear the voice of a loved one among the din.
We cannot identify whose voices can be heard. But the assault was sustained. In response, Jarrah immediately began to roll the airplane to the left and right, attempting to knock the passengers off balance. At 9:58:57, Jarrah told another hijacker in the cockpit to block the door. Jarrah continued to roll the airplane sharply left and right, but the assault continued. At 9:59, Jarrah changed tactics and pitched the nose of the airplane up and down to disrupt the assault. The recorder captured the sounds of loud thumps, crashes, shouts, and breaking glasses and plates.
At 10:00:03, Jarrah stabilized the airplane. Five seconds later, Jarrah asked, ?Is that it? Shall we finish it off?? A hijacker responded, ?No. Not yet. When they all come, we finish it off.? The sounds of fighting continued outside the cockpit. Again, Jarrah pitched the nose of the aircraft up and down.At 10:00:26, a passenger in the background said, ?In the cockpit. If we don?t we?ll die!? Sixteen seconds later, a passenger yelled,?Roll it!? Jarrah stopped the violent maneuvers at about 10:01:00 and said, ?Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!? He then asked another hijacker in the cockpit,? Is that it? I mean, shall we put it down?? to which the other replied, ?Yes, put it in it, and pull it down.? The passengers continued their assault and at 10:02:23, a hijacker said, ?Pull it down! Pull it down!? The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them. The airplane headed down; the control wheel was turned hard to the right.
The airplane rolled onto its back, and one of the hijackers began shouting ?Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest. ?With the sounds of the passenger counterattack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour, about 20 minutes? flying time from Washington D.C. Jarrah?s objective was to crash his airliner into symbols of the American Republic, the Capitol or the White House. He was defeated by the alerted, unarmed passengers of United"
The Mysterious Call of Edward Felt from UAL 93
Earlier coverage of the fate of UAL 93 was based in part on a reported cell call from a passenger named Edward Felt, who managed to reach an emergency official in Pennsylvania. How he got the emergency supervisor's number and managed to reach him remains unclear.
The call was apparently received at 9.58 am, eight minutes before the reported time of the crash at 10.06 am in Pennsylvania:
"Local emergency officials said they received a cell phone call at 9.58 am from a man who said he was a passenger aboard the flight. The man said he had locked himself in the bathroom and told emergency dispatchers that the plane had been hijacked. "We are being hijacked! We are being hijacked!" he was quoted as saying. A California man identified as Tom Burnett reportedly called his wife and told her that somebody on the plane had been stabbed. "We're all going to die, but three of us are going to do something," he told her. "I love you honey."
The alleged call by Edward Felt from the toilet of the aircraft of UAL 93 was answered by Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor in Pennsylvania who took the call.
It is worth noting that Glenn Cramer was subsequently gagged by the FBI." (See Robert Wallace`s incisive analysis published in Sept 2002 by the Daily Mirror, (What Happened to Flight 93 ).
Ironically, this high profile cell call by Ed Felt, which would have provided crucial evidence to the 9/11 Commission was, for some reason, not mentioned in the Report.
American Airlines Flight 11
Flight 11 took off at 7:59. Just before 8:14. The Report outlines an airphone conversation of flight attendant Betty Ong and much of the narrative hinges upon this airphone conversation
There are no clear-cut reports on the use of cell phones on Flight AA11. According to the Report, American 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8.46.
Concluding Remarks
A large part of the description, regarding the 19 hijackers relies on cell phone conversations with family and friends.
While a few of these calls (placed at low altitude) could have got through, the wireless technology was not available. On this issue, expert opinion within the wireless telecom industry is unequivocal.
In other words, at least part of the Commission's script in Chapter 1 on the cell phone conversations, is fabricated.
According to the American Airline / Qualcomm announcement, the technology for cell phone transmission at high altitude will only be available aboard commercial aircraft in 2006. This is an inescapable fact.
In the eyes of public opinion, the cell phone conversations on the Arab hijackers is needed to sustain the illusion that America is under attack.
The "war on terrorism" underlying the National Sec
 
Re: Debate #7

i was simply presenting what i think happened based on what i saw and what i've read....you obviously disagree

looks like we are at a stalemate
 

DimeDR

Banned
Re: Debate #7

anti,

these youngsters need some leeway bc they have a "chance" to come around, tar baby is so lost its actually sad ... but we all started somewhere and maybe he can listen to his guru coburn get his nuts fried
 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Debate #7

Popular Mechanics?

How dumb does the Right look?

Of course ... those airheads also dont realize that FOX NEWS CEO Ailes
worked to get Reagan and Bush elected
 

DimeDR

Banned
Re: Debate #7

listen to the interview, tar baby and get back to us ... stalemate?? hardly you got pawns, we are all Kings :)
 

DimeDR

Banned
Re: Debate #7

listen to coburn talk about "pull it" LMAO even later they admit it's a demo term, jeff hill phoned people in biz and they admitted it on tape
 
Re: Debate #7

listened to a little of it....my views havent changed...i dont know what you old guys are looking for here
 
Top