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

[Oz1976]

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..."

This. There is no debating anymore. There is no acceptance of evidence or dialogue of any kind. Those who are still entrenched in Trutherism's will be till the day they die. Perhaps a few can escape the grip of the cult, but I doubt it. I'm taking Mackey's advice to an extent. I will no longer debate with Truthers, though I will still ridicule some of them. RedIbis deserve's no one's attention. None of you should go round and round with this cultist, ignore him/her. He/she has not answered one single question posed in this thread. Obfuscated and flat out ignored some, and simply replies with what can only be described as trolling retorts.

No matter what Consensus 9/11 hopes to achieve, they will fail, as all truther nonsense has failed. The Toronto Hearings failed. The CIT failed. The Truth Movement has failed. It's a non-issue. They can't even get any support from the Occupy Movement. It's really sad.

 

[RedIbis]

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...

Sometimes antecedents and pronouns work out just perfectly.

 

[000063]

Except that the Truthers claim that

a)the collapses were entirely unprecedented, so they were rigged
b)they look just like demolitions, so they were rigged

 

[LSSBB]

Sometimes antecedents and pronouns work out just perfectly.

RedIbis, I understand it is easy to fire back at funny grammar mistakes, and a quick win for you. Why not try rebutting what Beachnut is saying. Do you accept that he is correct in his last statement, or do you have something that proves him wrong? He is demolishing a piece of the "best evidence" that the "official" version of 9/11 is not factual. Do you accept that?

 

[sylvan8798]

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.

Why do you think "they" didn't make that part of the "official narrative"? Surely someone writing the script knew that pilots are trained to enter a code to alert the FAA if there is a hijacking?

 

[RedIbis]

Why do you think "they" didn't make that part of the "official narrative"? Surely someone writing the script knew that pilots are trained to enter a code to alert the FAA if there is a hijacking?

If 9/11 was an inside job, you can't possibly expect the orchestrators to get everything right, nor could such a plan have been pulled off flawlessly. 9/11 is merely the result of a plan, not necessarily exactly what was planned.

Again, the fact that none of the eight pilots squawked the hijack code is reason to be skeptical of the official narrative of events.

 

[000063]

If 9/11 was an inside job, you can't possibly expect the orchestrators to get everything right, nor could such a plan have been pulled off flawlessly. 9/11 is merely the result of a plan, not necessarily exactly what was planned.

Except that what Truthers argue is that the planners somehow pulled off their conspiracy with such a degree of competence that they managed to fool the vast majority of the world's experts on the relevant subject matter, but aren't able to fool random unlettered people on the Internet looking at blurry videos who are largely unable to admit they're wrong on anything, such as a land-developer "making out like a bandit" from 9/11. If you can't admit you're when you're objectively wrong on minor matters, then one cannot be considered impartial.

Again, the fact that none of the eight pilots squawked the hijack code is reason to be skeptical of the official narrative of events.

You're Texas Sharpshooting. Any squawk code would've been a sequence of buttons, not some big red button to push. Unless you're trained for people bursting into the cockpit with intent to kill all of you in a few seconds, your root level programming in such a situation is almost always going to be

10 survive
20 goto 10

It's not unusual at all.

I note you didn't answer LSSBB's post, as you will ignore mine because it bought up a mistake you made and are trying desperately to forget.

 

[alienentity]

Again, the fact that none of the eight pilots squawked the hijack code is reason to be skeptical of the official narrative of events.

??? It is an ambiguous fact; you don't know why the code was not used. It may have been due to surprise or confusion.

It has no effect on the fact that:

1) The planes were hijacked
2) Eyewitnesses described events from the planes
3) The hijackers were identified both on flight manifests and on security cameras

Surely none of you truthers are suggesting that the pilots and their immediate colleagues deliberately sacrificed themselves in order to carry out some strange plot?? Healthy skepticism should be based on an ability to reason, not an inability to reason.....

 

[alienentity]

Red's approach is a perfect illustration of the way disbelief is used to malform one's thinking. Why the 30-second gap? It was inferred from the CVR, but the CVR was released by the 'authorities' so why believe that it is authentic? Applying truthy disbelief, NO FACTS are reliable anyway, so you can never know anything... except that it must've been an inside job since there are discrepancies and conflicts with the facts (which are not reliable anyway).

Look anywhere in the truther narrative(s) and you'll see such absurdity:
The hole in the Pentagon was small, therefore no plane crashed there - inside job
There were no bodies seen at Shanksville - inside job
The towers fell very quickly - inside job
No plane hit WTC 7 - inside job

etc... I refer to this cognitive malfunction as 'CD of the Gaps' when it applies to the compulsion to assign 'Controlled Demolition' as the reason for every anomaly or confusing aspect of the collapses; but 'Conspiracy of the Gaps' would apply to everything else related to 9/11, I suppose. Pilot's didn't react in the manner a conspiracist thinks they should've? That's an anomaly, however slight and ambiguous - so it means 'Inside Job'.

 

[Dog Town]

Surely none of you truthers are suggesting that the pilots and their immediate colleagues deliberately sacrificed themselves in order to carry out some strange plot??

This is exactly what the maroons are doing!

 

[000063]

Red's approach is a perfect illustration of the way disbelief is used to malform one's thinking. Why the 30-second gap? It was inferred from the CVR, but the CVR was released by the 'authorities' so why believe that it is authentic? Applying truthy disbelief, NO FACTS are reliable anyway, so you can never know anything... except that it must've been an inside job since there are discrepancies and conflicts with the facts (which are not reliable anyway).

Correction: no facts are reliable except the ones they believe support their argument. It's like when Moan Hoaxers want NASA to prove they went to the moon, but don't actually know what they'd accept as proof, because it doesn't exist. In fact, just asking them or Truthers is often enough to make them start twisting like a worm on a hook, or babbling some nonsense about "lack of anomalies". There's very little positive evidence, only things they think should be there that aren't, therefore aliens.

 

[Tezro]

Another shining example of "Best Evidence":

From Point #5: "Only the top sections of these buildings were damaged by the impacts and the resulting fires, whereas their steel structures, much heavier towards the base, were like pyramids in terms of strength. So the official account, which ruled out explosives, cannot explain why these buildings completely collapsed."

Here is the source provided for the claim: "Like pyramids: Architect Mario Salvadori explains: “The load on the columns increases with the number of floors of the building, and their weight must vary in the same proportion.” (Dr. Mario Salvadori, “Why Buildings Stand Up” [New York: W.W. Norton, 1980], p. 117). The lower the floors, the stronger the steel structures. So even if the impacts and fires had caused the top sections of these buildings to collapse, the collapses would have been arrested by the lower floors. "

Again, completely misrepresenting the information contained in their own sources. I happen to have a copy of "Why Buildings Stand Up" in front of me, and Mr. Salvadori is not discussing the World Trade Center in the quote provided. If one were to read the quote in context, they would never draw the conclusion that Mr. Salvadori believes that "Tall steel framed buildings are like pyramids in terms of strength." It makes me particularly annoyed to see Mario Salvadori's words being twisted in such a way, he died prior to 9/11 and certainly would have had something to say about the merit of the controlled demolition hypothesis. If they want to say "The Twin Towers were like pyramids in terms of their strength", they ought to link to a credible source which actually says this. The way they have constructed their "footnotes" is so sloppy and misleading, I find it hard to believe that they aren't aware of the liberties they are taking with the truth. They end up making a separate, unsourced claim within the "footnote", that "the collapses would have been arrested by the lower floors", conveniently ignoring that this claim has been specifically and authoritatively dismissed already. (I can't post links yet, but it's in the discussion of Bazant's paper that specifically addressed James Gourley.)

Most of the technical claims made by the truthers are outside of my area of expertise, so I try and leave it to others to address these. I'm just a carpenter; but I do have a pretty decent layman's understanding of the principles of structural engineering, partly from reading both "Why buildings stand up" and "Why buildings fall down".

I was also a History student as an undergrad, and if I ever produced research as crappily "sourced" as this stuff, I surely would have flunked out early. There is every indication that they have no concern for presenting factual information, only a concern for presenting information which is, on its face, "compelling".

 

[RedIbis]

I note you didn't answer LSSBB's post, as you will ignore mine because it bought up a mistake you made and are trying desperately to forget.

I did. Realized that it was nothing but a pot shot and deleted it.

 

[DGM]

Did I miss where Red answered my question?

 

[LSSBB]

I did. Realized that it was nothing but a pot shot and deleted it.

You did not. I asked you to specifically refute what Beachnut is saying about the 30 seconds. Look to his post at 3:10 yesterday.

 

[TexasJack]

Most of the technical claims made by the truthers are outside of my area of expertise, so I try and leave it to others to address these. I'm just a carpenter; but I do have a pretty decent layman's understanding of the principles of structural engineering, partly from reading both "Why buildings stand up" and "Why buildings fall down".

For being "just a carpenter", you have excellent research skills. You're correct, their use of sources is a joke. That comes as no surprise as quote mining is a chronic habit of truthers.

The first thing I do with any content is check the sources. If the sources are not legitimate, or if legitimate, and they fail to support their argument, I disregard them. On technical issues, I consult experts. Fortunately my old college roommate and best friend (I drive him crazy with my questions) is a structural engineer. I feel he is one I can trust.
For the historical aspects of 9/11, I have read the best sourced books in this arena. Ghost Wars, Perfect Soldiers, Spying Blind, The Looming Tower are included. The research is second to none. Personal interviews with hundreds of those with inside knowledge, plus scouring the archives in multiple countries are examples of this type of research. Some of these authors have deservedly won Pulitzer Prizes for their research. DRG does horrible research on 9/11. I'm not sure if he's a ideologue or a scam artist trying to sell books. This latest consensus crap is no exception.

Welcome to the forums, I've found your posts so far to be very informative.

 

[BasqueArch]

If 9/11 was an inside job, you can't possibly expect the orchestrators to get everything right, nor could such a plan have been pulled off flawlessly. 9/11 is merely the result of a plan, not necessarily exactly what was planned.
Again, the fact that none of the eight pilots squawked the hijack code is reason to be skeptical of the official narrative of events.

Except that what Truthers argue is that the planners somehow pulled off their conspiracy with such a degree of competence that they managed to fool the vast majority of the world's experts on the relevant subject matter, but aren't able to fool random unlettered people on the Internet looking at blurry videos who are largely unable to admit they're wrong on anything, such as a land-developer "making out like a bandit" from 9/11.
......t.

Except Truthers claim that 9/11 was an inside job, the orchestrators got everything right, and that such a plan was pulled off flawlessly, and went off exactly as planned - to fool and anger Americans to retaliate and attack their enemies. American blowback.
A plan of astounding coordinated flawless complexity, 10,000 conspirators all paid to murder, no one said no, no one has squealed.
All the imperfections were perfectly planned to appear unplanned. Had the pilots time to enter the hijack code, truthers would have found this suspicious.
If the orchestrators cannot expect to get everything right, they cannot expect to keep all of thousands conspirators silent.

"To a truther, having double standards simply means they're better than the average person, because they have twice as many standards."
"To a truther, having double standards simply means they're better than the average person, because they have twice as many standards."
"To a truther, having double standards simply means they're better than the average person, because they have twice as many standards."
.................................................................

Truthers blind to the obvious
Truthers blind to the obvious
Truthers blind to the obvious​

 

[sylvan8798]

Pilots are trained to “squawk” the universal hijack code (7500) on a transponder if they receive evidence of an attempted hijacking, thereby notifying FAA controllers on the ground. But leading newspapers and the 9/11 Commission pointed out that FAA controllers were not notified.
A CNN story said that pilots are trained to send the hijack code “if possible.” But entering the code takes only two or three seconds, whereas it took hijackers, according to the official story, more than 30 seconds to break into the pilots’ cabin of Flight 93.
The fact that not one of the eight pilots performed this required action casts serious doubt on the hijacker story.

They use the word trained in such a way as to suggest that the pilots are trained similar to the way dogs are trained, by lots of repetition, or soldiers (also by lots of repetition). Do pilots really practice this procedure many times with mock-hijacking events on mock-up airplanes?

 

[DGM]

I still think we're tailing away from the thrust of the OP.

IS THIS THE BEST EVIDENCE? (or a slow work in progress).

 

[beachnut]

...
Again, the fact that none of the eight pilots squawked the hijack code is reason to be skeptical of the official narrative of events.

No, it is not anything.

You can't set the code when you are dead, or displaced from the cockpit. The planes were not hijacked, they were taken and used as Kinetic Energy Weapons.

We set the code covertly, to covertly tell ATC. We also have ways of telling ATC we are being hijacked, and we can ask for intervention. Setting the transponder is one way to quietly tell ATC of our problem.

... the fact that none of the eight pilots squawked the hijack code is they were dead or displaced. Only a few nuts in 911 truth think it is a reason to be skeptical of the official narrative.

We set the code when we want. On 911 the pilots were removed before they could do anything. The Flight 93 pilots alerted ATC with a MAYDAY call before they were killed or displaced from the cockpit, never to be heard from again. They must of been dead, they were never heard from after the cockpits were attacked.

Repeat... Pilots would set the hijack code when they find time after they know it is a hijacking. On 911 it was not a hijacking, it was murder. The code for murder is MAYDAY on the radio if you are not dead, or busy being killed. And you could squawk 7700 for emergency to get traffic priority. Setting the code "was" a covert way to alert ATC.

This claim

...
Again, the fact that none of the eight pilots squawked the hijack code is reason to be skeptical of the official narrative of events.

Your claim, is proof you have no usable knowledge of pilot procedures and expose your inability to be logical. The is no logical step from pilots not setting a 4 digit code, and the official story of 911.