Sunday, June 25, 2006

Tail Numbers and Occam's Razor

I must apologize, just a few posts back I warned everyone never to underestimate the stupidity of conspiracy theorists, and now I have done just that. A couple of months ago, when I read the "Viewer's Guide" I noticed a claim regarding the tail number of United 93, but decided it was too silly a point to merit an entire post on it. I was wrong, apparently the CTs consider it not only a valid point, but serious enough to challenge me for avoiding addressing it:

The flight path and other planes in the area opens the door to plane switching (like the plan outlined in the northwood documents), the tail number being seen later, and no recording of the flights.

hey james. do a entry about the tail numbers. I dare ya.

OK, so here goes, but first, an aside to set the stage. There is a principle known as Occam's Razor (or alternatively and more correctly, Ockham's Razor), which states that generally, the theory which requires the fewest number of assumptions is the correct one. For example:

The other day I woke up, went out front to get my copy of the Wall Street Journal and noticed a puddle on the ground.

How did that get there? Well here are two entirely possible theories:

Korey Rowe, in a fit of rage over Screw Loose Change chartered a C-130 with the proceeds from their movie, and using a new high tech glider developed for the Special Forces, performed a HALO jump to my front porch, where he dumped a bucket of water on my front steps, all to get my slippers wet when I retrieved my morning newspaper.

Or alternatively: Given I live in Seattle... it rained.

Now keeping that in mind, let's look at the claims of Loose Change, at the 1:05 mark:

It's an interesting postscript that Flight 93 was spotted on April 10th, 2003 at Chicago's O'Hare Airport, by David Friedman, a United Airlines employee who records all of his flights. The tail number, N591UA was spotted on Flight 1111, a United Airlines 757.

David Friedman apparently posted this on his family blog, which is no longer up, but I will assume that their reports of him writing this are at least true. But why do we have to take Mr. Friedman's word for it? The FAA's Bureau of Transportation Statistics keeps a publicly searchable record of all flights for purposes of recording flight delays. So what happens when we look up United Flight 1111, leaving out of Chicago O'Hare on April 10th, 2003? (click to make it bigger)








The tail number is N594UA, not N591UA. Just a bit of scribbly handwriting away.

So going back to my previous example, which of the following two theories involves the fewest assumptions:

A. The conspirators hid the plane for nearly two years, without changing the tail number, then took it out of hiding for one flight, allowed an employee too see it, and then hid it from the world forever, first having gone back to forge the FAA records to cover it up, conveniently having a tail number available which was only one off.

Or alternatively:

B: Some guy accidently wrote a 1 instead of a 4.

Which is it dear readers, A or B?

32 Comments:

At 25 June, 2006 15:47, Blogger MarkyX said...

C!

 
At 25 June, 2006 15:56, Blogger nesNYC said...

theory which requires the fewest number of assumptions is the correct one.

Osama is dead and therefore couldn't have made the "confession" videos so therefore the entire government story is a lie.

That's pretty simple isn't it? Why waste effort on tail numbers and all other bullshit that can be faked, oh sorry, "made mistakes." LOL!

 
At 25 June, 2006 16:18, Blogger default.xbe said...

Osama is dead and therefore couldn't have made the "confession" videos so therefore the entire government story is a lie.

or, alternatively

the govt story is true


wow, thats even simpler! only 5 words too

 
At 25 June, 2006 16:21, Blogger shawn said...

Osama is dead and therefore couldn't have made the "confession" videos so therefore the entire government story is a lie.


There's an extra assumption. You really don't understand Occam's Razor, do you?

 
At 25 June, 2006 16:35, Blogger nesNYC said...

There's an extra assumption. You really don't understand Occam's Razor, do you?

I read "fewest number of assumptions."

Fact:
- Osama is dead
- videos came out after the fact so can't be real

How much simpler does it get? Osama is the Achilles heel of the Government's story. In fact, it depends on him to have been alive to "confess." His obituary was written in Pakistan, he is dead. The videos and audio tapes coming out are faked. Simple.

 
At 25 June, 2006 16:38, Blogger default.xbe said...

Fact:
- Osama is dead


facts require proof or at least some shred of evidence, do you have either of those?

 
At 25 June, 2006 16:38, Blogger apathoid said...

Kinda like the blogger guy, I used to keep a log of all the planes I flew on, all the aircraft I spotted(thats alot of planes, as I spot at the 2nd busiest airport in the world), as well as the planes I've worked on. I've made so many damn mistakes I've since given up on logging altogether.

I've also seen many equipment changes in which there was a typo, ie changing from N127DL to N124DL when there is no N124DL in the fleet, there is a N124DE. Those things happen all the time.
I am sure N591UA has flown a leg or 2 since 9/11...

 
At 25 June, 2006 16:44, Blogger shawn said...

- Osama is dead

Not a verified fact, ergo an assumption.

- videos came out after the fact so can't be real

Arguing the consequent (logical fallacy). Your second statement hinges on a statement that has no factual basis, but acting as if it did.

 
At 25 June, 2006 16:47, Blogger apathoid said...

N'sync said..
I read "fewest number of assumptions."

Fact:
- Osama is dead


Fact - the Earth is flat and has 9 satellites and has only been in existance for 4000 years.

I'll keep repeating this in the hopes that'll come true..

 
At 25 June, 2006 17:23, Blogger nesNYC said...

Not a verified fact, ergo an assumption.

It's verified. Reported as "rumors" here in the US but it's pretty SOLIDLY established.

 
At 25 June, 2006 17:36, Blogger nesNYC said...

Osama bin Laden:
A dead nemesis perpetuated by the US government

 
At 25 June, 2006 17:37, Blogger James B. said...

Nintendo, I don't think you are following along very well. Making the assumption that Osama is dead requires making further assumptions that there is some huge elaborate plot to cover this up and fake his tapes.

As for the reverse, we already know he was alive at some point, so him continuing to be alive requires absolutely no assumptions at all.

 
At 25 June, 2006 17:48, Blogger nesNYC said...

As for the reverse, we already know he was alive at some point, so him continuing to be alive requires absolutely no assumptions at all.

But we know that everybody dies, especially those who are on dialysis. Bin Laden was terminally ill in Dec. 2001 and wrote his last will and testament. Musharraf said he was dead, and FBI agent had the same opinion. They would know better than you or I wouldn't they?

It's pretty simple, really. Bin Laden IS indeed dead and is why he could not have made the tapes subsequent to December 2001.

That implicates the US government in the fabrication of those tapes he is said to have made. Again, it's a pretty simplistic argument.

 
At 25 June, 2006 18:05, Blogger shawn said...

Again, it's a pretty simplistic argument.

Oh, it's simplistic, unfortunately, it's bogus.

The dialysis idea is widespread, but there's no concrete evidence he's on the treatment.

 
At 25 June, 2006 18:06, Blogger Richard said...

But we know that everybody dies, especially those who are on dialysis. Bin Laden was terminally ill in Dec. 2001 and wrote his last will and testament. Musharraf said he was dead, and FBI agent had the same opinion. They would know better than you or I wouldn't they?

It's pretty simple, really. Bin Laden IS indeed dead and is why he could not have made the tapes subsequent to December 2001.

That implicates the US government in the fabrication of those tapes he is said to have made. Again, it's a pretty simplistic argument.


Yes it is pretty simple when you ignore your own sources. Both the FBI and Musharraf THINK he is dead, not KNOW he is dead. As for that "knowing better" quote are you saying you trust the FBI? Because that would be a big 180 for you. I think you need to get it in your head that assumptions don't equal facts. Just because you think someone is dead does not make them dead. That's like saying "Well we think those mine workers are dead so lets just give up the rescue effort because they are clearly dead!

 
At 25 June, 2006 18:17, Blogger Falco98 said...

ZOMG BUSH DID IT LOL!!!!11!!!one

 
At 25 June, 2006 18:54, Blogger James B. said...

Musharraf said he was dead, and FBI agent had the same opinion.

You don't believe the FBI in any other situation, why start now?

 
At 25 June, 2006 19:07, Blogger dman said...

One of the first jobs I had in
computer field was writing programs
(in COBOL) to scan databases and
find incorrect or inconsistant data
so could be corrected. In another
job was responsible for inventory -
anythime tech would install/move/
remove piece of equipment had to
enter serial# in system. Would be
checked against master database and
kick out any that didn't match up.
Worked for guy who was real anal
about inventory - would get reports
and bust our ass if not correct
Had to send someone immediately
down to recheck serial and enter
back in system to get him off our
ass. So know about problems in
entering data!

 
At 26 June, 2006 00:15, Blogger jackhanyes said...

James picked one statement that he can take on and goes with that ignoring everything else about the tail numbers. Bum.

From loose change:

"And according the FAA, both N591UA and N612UA, Flights 93 and 175, are still valid."

N612UA active until 09/28/2005

N591UA active until 09/28/2005

Must have been an oversight.

Also, there is no data for the 9/11 AA flight 11 and 77 on the BTS site. We are told the the tail number was N334AA and N644AA, and canceled on 1/14/02.

And there is more...

"On Sept 10th 2001, Flight 0078 (=N591UA) arrived in Newark from SFO (San Fransisco) at 6:54 wheel on time. However, Flight 0507, with the same tail number, 591UA departed Boston Logan for ORD (Chicago) at 7:39 wheel off time, as current screenshots show. How is this possible?

Also, Boston does not have records of N591UA arriving at Logan that day and Newark only has it departing once at 19:40 PM EST.

There seems to be a problem here. It had 45 mins from touchdown in San Francisco before it left in another city. "


Maybe someone else writes in chicken scratch....

 
At 26 June, 2006 00:55, Blogger BobAlienson said...

James picked one statement that he can take on and goes with that ignoring everything else about the tail numbers. Bum.

From loose change:

"And according the FAA, both N591UA and N612UA, Flights 93 and 175, are still valid."

N612UA active until 09/28/2005

N591UA active until 09/28/2005


Or it could just be that United Airlines and American Airlines are two different companies with different routines. AA changed the records (in January 2002.. do you think they kept flying for four months after 9/11?) to reflect the fact that the aircraft had been destroyed, UA did not. There is no requirement to do so, and it has to be done by the owner of the aircraft.

Your whole argument is stupid. Do you honestly not think that UA (or Bush or the Jews) would have changed the registration numbers if the planes still existed? Why is it that they're all so incompetent and you're the only person smart enough to see the "truth?"

 
At 26 June, 2006 05:09, Blogger apathoid said...

"And according the FAA, both N591UA and N612UA, Flights 93 and 175, are still valid."

N612UA active until 09/28/2005

N591UA active until 09/28/2005

Must have been an oversight.

Also, there is no data for the 9/11 AA flight 11 and 77 on the BTS site. We are told the the tail number was N334AA and N644AA, and canceled on 1/14/02.

Great, the reg #s are still active as far as the FAA is concrened. Jack, this does not mean the aircraft are still intact and flying around. Many written off aircraft are still registered or have been cancelled long after after the aircrafts accident. This just means they are not available for anyone else to take yet.

In a 10 minute search I've also found that:

N438AT American Eagle ATR-72-212

Crash Date: 05/09/2004
Cancel Date: 01/04/2006

Heres an interesting one:

N479FE Fed Ex Boeing 727-232AF

Crash date: 07/26/02
Cancel Date: still valid

Thats odd, seeing that N497FE has clearly been written off

Now find maintenance records, ship tracking records, and perhaps the ships log books which show they've been flying after 9/11....that would be something.

 
At 26 June, 2006 05:22, Blogger apathoid said...

"On Sept 10th 2001, Flight 0078 (=N591UA) arrived in Newark from SFO (San Fransisco) at 6:54 wheel on time. However, Flight 0507, with the same tail number, 591UA departed Boston Logan for ORD (Chicago) at 7:39 wheel off time, as current screenshots show. How is this possible?

Also, Boston does not have records of N591UA arriving at Logan that day and Newark only has it departing once at 19:40 PM EST.

There seems to be a problem here. It had 45 mins from touchdown in San Francisco before it left in another city. "

"as current screenshots show"

What current screenshots, could you be a little more specific?

I'd love to refute this, but you're gonna have to come up with something to back this up.

 
At 26 June, 2006 06:22, Blogger apathoid said...

More Zombie planes:

N388US US AIRWAYS 737-3B7

Crash Date: 2/02/91
Cancel Date: 7/02/97

Ship 388 has quite clearly been W/O

N626TX Continental Airlines DC-9-14

Crash Date: 11/15/87
Cancel Date: Still Valid

N626TX has clearly been W/O

"Oversights" aren't so strange after all, are they Jack?

 
At 26 June, 2006 09:43, Blogger James B. said...

James picked one statement that he can take on and goes with that ignoring everything else about the tail numbers. Bum.


Sorry man, there are so many bogus claims in Loose Change I don't have time to get to all of them.

BTW it is no longer 2005.

 
At 26 June, 2006 10:40, Blogger default.xbe said...

think of tail numbers like a street address, you can tear down the building, but technically the address is still valid, and th enext building to go up on that spot will have the same address

by your logic 7 World Trade Center was never destroyed because its still a valid address and in fact there is building there now

 
At 26 June, 2006 10:40, Blogger CHF said...

This is another example of the CTers being unable to decide whether Bush is brilliant or fucking stupid.

He stages 9/11 but then doesn't think to change the numbers of flights he decides (for no reason at all) to leave in service after they supposedly crashed.

I never, EVER thought grown adults could be stupid enough to believe this. Never.

 
At 07 July, 2006 00:19, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Occam's razor means you cut out the evidence right?

 
At 13 September, 2006 12:15, Blogger James Baker said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!
I have a flight asia site.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
Greetings.

 
At 17 December, 2006 19:42, Blogger brad said...

i dont have time to repost eveything, so heres a copy and paste.
Loose change doesnt post the whole story. I am the one who found the freidman link
heres mor reading, you dont know the whole story at all.
Brad
911 review
search 911 material
===================
google search 591ua+freidman

http://tinyurl.com/yxlzaz


---------

care2.com


Just to chime in on a post above, about voice morphing, etc...

I am a Sr Design RF engineer (cell phone engineer) and i dont beleive those calls happened as they said they did.

Now, i am not saying the calls did not happen, but , after looking into this for a LONG time, what i think is that there was another plane that was being tracked. I dont think those calls are possible at the ALTITUDE they said, so, maybe they came from a different plane (than was being tracked), at a differnt altitude.

Several of the calls (from 93) were supposedly made above 35,000 ft, i dont buy that at all.

On a related note, the guy who made the maps that we all saw... has ties to the pentagon, and also with software used for war game technology !

He worked for Savi Technology , and Dimensions International.

Savi, does work with RFID tags, and here is the client list for DImension International

Dimensions International provides first and second level support for the FAA's Air Traffic Control Systems. Dimensions International is the world's leader in providing real-time aircraft tracking systems and both real-time and historical aircraft movement data.

Now, the above doesnt sound to strange, until you take into consideration the war games

so, what i think happened, is that the ATC (air traffic controllers) were fooled. They were tracking a blip from either a war games plane, OR, they were tracking a blip that was NOT REAL.

One possibility (my pet scenario) is that the main computer was HACKED. There is a main database (real time) of planes in the air, where they are, and their tail numbers etc...

Interestingly, flight 93 (the plane that was suppoed to be 93) tail number is N591UA.

I did a search of that tail nember for september 10th 2001, and it showed up twice at the same time, in different places.

Since this isnt possible (physically) i looked into what could have caused this, and the way the aplen is recorded in the database is through something called ACARS. This is electronic, and easily hacked. The ACARS system sends signals electronically, so does the transponder.

Add to this, that on all 4 planes, the transponder code changed during the flight.

(the transponder broadcasts signal particular to that plane, at that time)

Now, you can change the transponder code during flight, pilots are trained to send an emergency CODE if there is a problem, like a hijacking, but this was not done on ANY of the flights !

One several of the flights, it was changed more than once, on flight 175 it chaged 3 times!

Another possibility, is that a DRONE (remote controlled plane) was over the aircraft, and changed codes with the aircraft at that time.

Back to the tail number for flight 93 (N591UA).

I had mentioned that the tail # was in 2 places at one time, well, another aircraft was also in 2 places at one time on September 10th. ThAT TAIL # WAS N594UA.

I had done a search for the tail # (N591UA F93) on google (years ago) and about 20 pages deep, found a guy who supposedly flew this plae in 2003. Now, 591UA was F93, so this is the plane that crashed (supposedly). So, i checked the government database, and it said that flight was tail# 594UA. Well, imagine my surprise, this was the only other tail# that i found to be in 2 places at one time on sept 10th!

Now, i thought MAYBE he wrote this down wrong, AND, that it was a coincidence that these were the only 2 planes that were in the same place at one time on sept 10th.

So, i asked him , i left a message oon his web-board, and after a while, he responded publically (by this time, it was all over the net)

See, the thing is, he wrote the tail number and NOSE number down seperately, and the BOTH match 591UA. I asked if he took this home and used a databse to fill in the nose #, he said NO.

He also says that he seriously doubts that he wrote the tail # AND nose # down wrong.

To make things a bit harder to swallow, if you want to think this is a coincidence, is that this was a Boeing 757, just like 591UA, and the tail nmeber and nose numbers are diferent, (and they often are)

Well, he says


So, tail number 591UA, may have been swapped with another tail number that day

18 people were "NOT SUPPOSED TO FLT THAT DAY" on flight 93.
flight 91 was cancelled due to other problems, and many may have been transferred to flight 93.
So how many passengers bought tickets for flight 93 ahead of time?
I can only find a couple that sound that way from reading any text i find on the net from them.
many of the crew wrent supposed to fly either.
this leaves about 19 passengers ( and many of them may have come from flight 91 !


copy and paste from my blog (feb 2004) ...
The other odd thing isa that the tail number of flight 93 was N591UA , but at least 3 sites (reputable pilots web sites) said it was tail number N519UA, and 3 sites published on Sept 11th and 12th posted the fourth plane as flight 91 not 93?
So flight 91 tail number N519UA was used as one of the craft to pull off operation Pearle, OR flight 91 went down in Penn and flight 93 took off with all the passengers !
that is how they got rid of the passengers, if we can pinpoint where flight 91 went or tail number N519UA went on sept 11th we have sloved part of

 
At 17 December, 2006 19:47, Blogger brad said...

Now, add to it, THIS

23(and counting) of the 44 people on Flight 93 were not supposed to be on the flight that day.

Then, reports of people coming from flight 91, that was grounded, means there were less (maybe FAR LES than 21 people actually scheduled to fly flight 93 ahead of time !

Read the accounts ! Heres is Just ONE...

3. Donald Peterson.

They weren't supposed to be on United Flight 93, but they
got to the Newarkairport early, and their original flight was late and crowded. http://www.hazlitt.org/united/whotheywere2.html

flight 93 pax


Now, each one of these "coincidences" by themselves, might be exlplained away, but taken together, are worthy of investigation.


Now, the records arent there (for some reason), for most of the planes tail #'s on the morning of Sept 11th. No reason given WHY they are missing, most had talken off BEFORE the events statrted that morning, but we beleive N594UA (OR, maybe N591UA, was Flight 91

Flight 93, wasnt the only ODDITY, all of them had something strange, i cant post them all, but herers something about flight 11

Oddly enough, close scrutiny of Flight 11 (which crashed into the north tower of the WTC) leaving Logan Airport in Boston has shown that there were apparently two separate designated boarding gates for the doomed flight. Researchers Nico Haupt & Woody Box have done a detailed analysis based entirely on mainstream accounts and eye witness statements showing that, while the official account has Flight 11 being boarded at gate 26, the flight actually took off from gate 32. However, no passengers actually boarded at gate 32, instead boarding at gate 26. Under close scrutiny it becomes exceedingly difficult to dismiss this discrepancy as a mere ?mistake?, quite to the contrary.

Michael Kane: "9/11 War Games - No Coincidence"

(actually, i was invlovewd with finding this, along with woody and Nico)


Sept. 11 is Sliney's first day on the job as national operations manager FAA

More reading...

brad.team8plus.org/external


brad.team8plus.org/

.brad.team8plus.org/custom.html
http://physics911.ca/


Boston Air Traffic Controller Says 9/11 An Inside Job http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/boston_air_traffic_controller_911_inside_job.htm

 
At 02 March, 2007 18:55, Blogger 911review.org said...

Friedman copied BOTH the tail number AND the NOSE number down.

BOTH match up to 591UA.

he ADMITS he wrote them down separate.

When asked if he could have made a mistake on BOTH of them, he admits he doubts it.

The nose and tail #'s are different,
so the likelihood of him making a "mistake" on BOTH, and then, both HAPPEN to be the same as flight 93's tail AND nose, ....
well, the numbers are probably astronomical


http://publish.portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/300588.shtml

 
At 02 March, 2007 18:56, Blogger 911review.org said...

http://publish.portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/300588.shtml

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home