"Consensus 9/11: The Best Evidence" - O RLY?

[DGM]

Check out the site itself, they're pretty clear about their methodogy, sources and purpose.

It's interesting that both of our quoted statements are from the same site but, seem to be in conflict.

“Best evidence”, as used by the 9/11 Consensus Panel, is not evidence in support of alternative theories of what happened on 9/11.

The purpose of the 9/11 Consensus Panel is to provide the world with a clear statement, based on expert independent opinion, of some of the best evidence opposing the official narrative about 9/11.

 

[RedIbis]

It's interesting that both of our quoted statements are from the same site but, seem to be in conflict.

Read it again. They're not in conflict at all. They're both saying that evidence against official explanations is not evidence in support of alternative theories.

 

[DGM]

Read it again. They're not in conflict at all. They're both saying that evidence against official explanations is not evidence in support of alternative theories.

So what is it in support of if not something other than the "official narrative"?

 

[RedIbis]

So what is it in support of if not something other than the "official narrative"?

Skepticism toward the official story. What's so hard to understand about that?

 

[Tezro]

You seem to be quibbling a semantic point. The panel is skeptical because there is a 30 duration from the time the CVR records the pilot screaming "Mayday" and "Get out of here."

From that piece of evidence, the panel is skeptical of the larger point that not one of the eight pilots squawked this code.

Personally, I don't find this point all that strong, but that doesn't make yours nor Beachnut's debunking arguments any better.

The point, simply stated, is that they cite a source to support a claim, which in fact, does not support the claim in the least. The source does not say what they say that it does. It's not a semantic quibble, I'm pointing out they they are citing sources, while demonstrably misrepresenting the information contained in the source.

If they want to make a claim that "it took hijackers...more than 30 seconds to break into the pilots' cabin on flight 93", they need to provide a source supporting this assertion. The LA Times article is a total non-sequitur in this context.

It's indicative of the utter lack of rigor and intellectual honesty of this endeavor.

 

[DGM]

Skepticism toward the official story. What's so hard to understand about that?

Wouldn't that need "theories against"?

 

[Edx]

Skepticism toward the official story. What's so hard to understand about that?

Intelligent Deisgn is just skepticism towards evolution. not Creationism at alL!!!

 

[DGM]

Skepticism toward the official story. What's so hard to understand about that?

If this came out in 2003 I could see your point. It's 2011 and all of the authors have voiced opinions toward the "official narrative".

 

[NoahFence]

I wasn't speaking to the validity or invalidity of the point. I was merely pointing out to Beachnut that if he had read more closely he'd see that the reason for the group's skepticism is the fact that the code only takes a few seconds to enter and reports are that it took 30 seconds for the hijackers to enter the cockpit.

Which means you have the opportunity to rail on what you percieve could possibly be one mistake or misunderstanding by a poster, while ignoring the fact that twoofer's massive fails are counted by the dozens at a time.


Like certain Jewish real estate moguls and their windfalls.

 

[NoahFence]

Here, debunking has become merely providing reasonable sounding explanations, not refutations with evidence.

Bolding italics mine.

Wha...wha...wha....WHAT?!?!?!


There IS no better evidenced-based resource on killing stupid 9/11 theories on the entire internet than the JREF.

 

[WildCat]

I don't mind answering the question

Of course you do. You refuse to answer every single question,or acknowledge every single piece of evidence, that is inconvenient for your delusions. That's why you're a truther.

Have you discovered a single truthy fact about 9/11 yet, so you can finally start that 9/11 Fact Movement you've been dreaming about for years?

 

[alienentity]

Just to address one point:
Point 3: A Claim about the Destruction of the Twin Towers: Impact, Fire, and Gravity Only

The Official Account

The Twin Towers were destroyed by three and only three causes: the impacts of the airliners, the resulting fires, and gravity.

The Best Evidence

During the destruction of the Twin Towers, huge sections of the perimeter steel columns, weighing many tons, were ejected horizontally as far as 500 to 600 feet, as seen in multiple photographs and maps. These high-speed ejections of heavy structural members cannot be explained by the fires, the pull of gravity, or the airplane impacts (which had occurred about an hour earlier).

That is false. The truth is that they can be explained, but 9/11 Truthers reject these explanations, without providing any scientific basis (such as a valid, scientific paper written by a qualified expert and published in a standard, recognized scientific journal) for rejecting them.

Human bone fragments approximately 1 cm long were found in abundance on the roof of the Deutsche Bank following the Towers’ destruction, which further points to the use of explosives. Pancaking or tamping of floors from above would tend to trap bodies, not hurl splintered bones over 500 feet horizontally.

Speculative, with no proper citations given to support this claim. Since DNA testing has not been done on the fragments we do not know whether they came from the initial plane impacts or from the collapses. The top of the Deutsche Bank building was about 565 ft, about 1/2 the height of each WTC 1 and 2.
Even considering the impact of Flight 175 on WTC 2 (the closest tower to the Bank), there was a gigantic fireball seen on the Naudet video, and it is possible to see reflections of a shower of material spreading to the South, which would have been directly over Deutsche Bank building. Can this be eliminated as a source for the bone fragments? Not by DRG et al., that's for sure - they provide nothing of substance.



Just taking this single point it is obvious that this is a rhetorical, not a scientific exercise. The claims are specious unless they can be backed up by established science, not just vague, unqualified declarations. That's my opinion on first glance, anyway.

 

[spcantwell]

point by point...

here are some questions for the untruthers that believe this junk,

point one, did the FBI or the government ever state that OBL was PERSONALLY responsible for the attacks? or did they simply say that the organization that he was the head of was responsible? AKA mob bosses are not charged with every crime done by there organizations, but they are still 'responsible' for the actions.

point two, they seem to ignore the whole point of WEAKENED steel, not to mention 'creep' under those heat loads. (if plastics warps in the microwave you will say that it MELTED, doesn't mean it turned into a liquid)

point three, small horizontal components over large vertical distances add up. aka, tossing a ball from 1 ft above the ground and 100 ft above will give you different distances.

point four, actual nist did a whole section in NCSTAR 1A about explosions. besides no one claims that loud sounds where not heard, just that they where not caused by explosives.

point five, the towers DID survive the impacts, the fires resulting from such collisions where never taken into account.

point six, no other building with the same design as wtc7 has ever had uncontrolled fires for 6 hrs. plenty of people on scene reported the building slowly bulging or have internal collapses

point seven, the BUILDING didn't collapse at free fall. the other facade dropped at 'free fall' for a total of 2.25 seconds. out of the 30 or so (when you start the time at the first penthouse collapse). it wasn't even the FIRST 2 seconds as would be expected in any sort of CD.

point eight, see above

point nine, do we really need to go over paint chips again?

point ten, why did it take "30 seconds"? before 9/11 the cockpit doors where often not locked or used doors lighter then that used in public restrooms. BTW, any pilot here who can actually say how long it really takes to enter a new code? it takes more the 2 or 3 seconds to set a radio channel in a car, WITHOUT people distracting you by threatening your life in a confined area.

point eleven, yes, because it crashed, those same people reported a large amount of debris AT the site, just nothing that still looked like an airliner. that 'eight miles' is by road, it was only a mile or so away and was all light stuff (like seat cushions). Why would they 'shoot down' this plane in secret if everyone claims that there needed to be a 'stand down' order for the other ones?

point twelve, actually they said it couldn't be flown that way SAFELY. I don't think that the hi hijackers were worried about over stressing the airframe. Also, ground effect would help to keep the plane from impacting the ground.

point thirteen, if he was 'in on it' from the Beginning, shouldn't he have had enough time to get his own story strait?

point fourteen, what does it mean when the untruther movement cant come up with anything new that hasn't been debunked for years.
That and the claim that everything is so obvious, that anyone can see it, but they all disagree on the basics of those claims, everything from no planes, to thermite, to explosives, to nucs in the basement, to R/C planes, to the LHOP people.

 

[The Platypus]

Skepticism toward the official story. What's so hard to understand about that?

What is the official story?

It's not hard to understand that it is nothing but cult mantra, that you all recite like programmed drones, used to paint a deceptive picture of what happened...

 

[DGM]

What is the official story?

It's not hard to understand that it is nothing but cult mantra, that you all recite like programmed drones, used to paint a deceptive picture of what happened...

You didn't read the link in the OP. It's the panels opinion of the facts they think were presented in opposition of their views.


You must not question this.......SHILL.

 

[leftysergeant]

I wasn't speaking to the validity or invalidity of the point. I was merely pointing out to Beachnut that if he had read more closely he'd see that the reason for the group's skepticism is the fact that the code only takes a few seconds to enter and reports are that it took 30 seconds for the hijackers to enter the cockpit.

You are, of course, assuming that it took less than thirty seconds for the pilots to figure out that they needed to punch inb the code.

It is concieveable that at as little as five seconds after the first sign of trouble, thery were too busy dealing with what appeared to be an event beyond the scope of their training and experience. To expect flawless execution of a standard operating procedure under such circumstances is a little bit absurd.

Think of it in terms of a police shoot-out. Cops are trained to make quick decisions on when to fire or not. They are trained to take at least enough time to aim so that there is a high probability that they will effectively neutralize any physical threats to the officer's well-being.

All of that really helped a few years back when somebody stole a Seattle PD cruiser and two other units mistook each other for the suspect.

They discharged about a hundred rounds of shotgun ammo at each other before they figured out the mistake.

Nobody was injured. It is a challenge to describe how wrong that is from several angles.

Training and SOP do not always work as predicted in an OH **** scenario.

 

[LSSBB]

You didn't read the link in the OP. It's the panels opinion of the facts they think were presented in opposition of their views.


You must not question this.......SHILL.

The whole thing reads like the Nicene creed, a statement of beliefs. They call it "Factual Evidence Contradicts the 9/11 Story" however they present no factual evidence contradicting anything, all is conjecture and subjective interpretations, except for references to some chemical experiments that were not adequately peer reviewed.

 

[beachnut]

Obviously, you missed where it links to a source that it took 30 seconds for the hijackers to enter the cockpit. Therefore, being unable to enter the code in a few seconds is what raises their suspicion.

Obviously you missed the fact the hijackers removed the pilots before the pilots knew it was a hijacking. It takes longer than a few seconds to set the code, you lack the knowledge!
There is a code for killing the crew and crashing into the cockpit, it is not the hijack-code, and the code was given! FAILURE COMES QUICK AND OFTEN FOR 911 TRUTH WHO WALLOW IN IGNORANCE, CELEBRATE IT, LIKE IT IS A VIRTUE.

It was not a hijacking, it was murder. Murder, what is the code for murder? I know it, do you? I am a pilot, and to set the code in the KC-135, you have to take your finger and roll in numbers from 0-7, Four times. IN an emergency, like murder, or unknown threats you would call mayday, ETC... (they did)

The Pilots on 93 gave the code for murder. Missed by your hero's, the nuts on 911 issues; idiots you support with nothing but their hearsay and nonsense. You show up armed with lies and hearsay, as usual.

Lack of research from morons with insane, brain-dead claims about 911. Transcript of ATC.

Got a clue what MAYDAY means?
Flight 93 pilots were attacked, yelled, "mayday". Means the pilots did what they were trained to do before they were killed. Are you happy yet? Why do you like moronic claims based on complete ignorance?

Point 10: A Claim Regarding Hijacked Passenger Jets

The Official Account
The 9/11 Commission Report holds that four airplanes (American Airlines flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines flights 93 and 175) were hijacked on 9/11.
The Best Evidence
... But leading newspapers and the 9/11 Commission pointed out that FAA controllers were not notified.
....

The best evidence these morons have, confirms that they are ...

There is evidence of 19 terrorists taking 4 planes. When we are hijacked... The hijack code is set quietly when you get the chance during cockpit duties - you lost this round, you lost all the rounds as you fail to back up your support with evidence, you are once again using massive amounts of ignorance and hearsay. Failure, 10 years and you can't figure out 911 - are you going for the record?

... pilots point of view (base on flying from 1973, as a private pilot, USAF student pilot, copilot, aircraft commander, instructor pilot, flight commander, standardization/evaluation pilot, chief instructor pilot, etc.).
We put the code in at our discretion, not when you and the idiots of 911 truth think we should. The aircraft commander, the captain, he guy in charge decides when the code is set! Not you and a bunch of nuts on 911 who use CNN as a source, the same source which calls them a bunch of crackpots. We would not rush to enter the code, it might get too much attention during a real hijacking. We might wait for 10 minutes. This point by the nuts on 911 proves they are mentally ill, or dumber than dirt; take your pick. As a pilot you use your judgement on when to tell ATC and the world of your problem. We must warn ATC if we depart from our clearance, but that also is self-critiquing, as seen on 911 when the pilots had zero chance to warn anyone, YET ATC diverted traffic and kept all traffic away from 4 planes off clearance, off course. This issue exposes these fools in 911 truth as failed nuts. The only thing they can do is mislead those who lack knowledge, those who share the same insane delusions.

 

[Robrob]

We would not rush to enter the code, it might get too much attention during a real hijacking. We might wait for 10 minutes. This point by the nuts on 911 proves they are mentally ill, or dumber than dirt; take your pick.

It's lose/lose. If they had jumped to set the code in the first thirty seconds, the CT loons would call it "too soon, as if it were pre-planned! The plane wasn't even hijacked at the time. Etc..."

 

[beachnut]

Read it again. They're not in conflict at all. They're both saying that evidence against official explanations is not evidence in support of alternative theories.

They are idiots. Their own sources used to support their fantasy, debunk their fantasy.

Point 10: A Claim Regarding Hijacked Passenger Jets

... The fact that not one of the eight pilots performed this required action casts serious doubt on the hijacker story.

The Passengers and crew of Flight 93 reported "hijackers". Oops, the same article that they got the "30 second" hearsay claim from! Failure...

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/12/nation/na-moussa12
"It felt like the plane was turning and was going to crash," Guidetti said Britton told her friend. The friend then heard screams and the phone went dead.
Mark Bingham made four calls. He reported the plane had been "hijacked by three men with a bomb." Then he said he was sending his love, Guidetti said.
Flight attendants also were calling. Sandra Bradshaw three times speed-dialed a United Airlines office. She reported there were only two hijackers, one in the cockpit, the other in first class. She said the men "appeared to be Islamic" and that "the little guy was wearing a red band on his head."

911 truth can't figure out 911. What is new?