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

[ozeco41]

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

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

They misuse the English language.

The 13 points are claims not evidence. They even sub heading them as "claims".

Typical truther foggy logic.

They could be the 13 points which the group found most agreement as to their inclusion in "Consensus 911: The Agreed List of Claims".

They also happen to be a list of some of the most comprehensively rebutted claims about 9/11.

Pure desperation on their part and, as I said previously, a sign that the 9/11 controversies have run out of energy.

 

[DGM]

They misuse the English language.

The 13 points are claims not evidence. They even sub heading them as "claims".

Typical truther foggy logic.

They could be the 13 points which the group found most agreement as to their inclusion in "Consensus 911: The Agreed List of Claims".

They also happen to be a list of some of the most comprehensively rebutted claims about 9/11.

Pure desperation on their part and, as I said previously, a sign that the 9/11 controversies have run out of energy.

All true.

The missed point is "best". When one publishes a list claimed as "best" it usually is "best". Not a work is progress.

 

[Oz1976]

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

See? This is proof no one should engage this troll in any further discussion. He/She is nothing more than a liar from a den of liars. The inability to admit one's failings relegates you to evolutionary stagnancy. Redibis will never evolve. RedIbis will never grow up. RedIbis will be stuck as a twoofer troll till the day he/she dies. Ignore these idiots. It's over.

 

[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.

Only using no logic, and in the world of delusions 911 truth pushes.

Not a traditional hijacking, pilots were displace/killed is the only conclusion supported by this "fact" which has you confused.

 

[Edx]

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

UH HUH. You are defending people that believe that no one thinks anyone heard explosions on 911, when that is the complete opposite. Lots of people heard explosions, its just that this is fully expected in building fires and in a hundred other situations. You are defending people that believe that there were no hiajckers because the CNN victim lists didn't list their murderers as victims and which said they didnt include them anyway. Thats two examples, but my fingers cant possibly type all the absurd fails of the truth movement here for you.

 

[Reheat]

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

Another illustration of just how ignorant of reality you really are. The fact is this CONFIRMS the "official narrative" in that the crews obviously did not have time to set a code in the transponder.

Emergency responses by pilots can be divided into two main categories:

Critical Action or Immediate Action - this includes such items as activating fire suppression and shutting down and engine when there are indications of an engine fire. Or action performed in the event of rapid loss of pressurization.

Non-Critical Action - this includes everything that is not critical. Setting the hijack code would be in this category. It would be set when there is time to do it in a covert manner so the intruders would not know ATC was notified of the problem.

Anyone who is sensible would know that the cockpit intrusion was very rapid and violent giving the pilots no chance to respond. It's quite fortunate that the UA 93 crew were able to get a MAYDAY call out. That was more appropriate than setting the hijack code anyway. It's not as if a magic skyhook would arrive to rescue everyone in either case.

Ignorant twoofers are truly grasping a straws with this one....

 

[leftysergeant]

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.

That is the motherlode of stupid right there. The columns are stronger at the bottom, but you still have the same strength in the brackets holding the floors up. If the top floor is already overloaded to failure point, it just drops that much weigh plus its own on the next floor, and the action is repeated all the way down. The dimbulbs in the twoof movement have never demonstrated an arresting mechanism.

 

[slowsmile]

9/11 is merely the result of a plan, not necessarily exactly what was planned.

Yup, the hijackers never meant the plane to crash at Shanksville.

 

[Robrob]

Yup, the hijackers never meant the plane to crash at Shanksville.

Not to mention the "missing" Flight 77 the Illumnati hijacked as a cover for the cruise missile they really used against the Pentagon. To destroy evidence, on computers, on the internet, with back up servers, um, er...

You know, the building Rumsfeld was in when...

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The list isn't perfect, but it's a good start.

Over ten years after 9/11 and after 6 months of work, all they came up with is a "good start"? What a hollow defense. I can sense the insincerity, as if you're defending a family member you know has failed in some way...

What's so hard to understand about that?

Evidence against one thing must necessarily be evidence for something else. If they're trying to say that they do not endorse any specific alternative to the "official story", how hard is it to just state that in a clear and concise manner? These people suck at communication...

 

[cjnewson88]

Am I invisible in this thread, or does RedIbis choose to attack beachnuts incomplete information rather than looking 1 comment up from his and seeing my 'more complete' debunking regarding the 30 second hijack time.. (look on the 1st page, just above his comment...)

 

[ozeco41]

Am I invisible in this thread, or does RedIbis choose to attack beachnuts incomplete information rather than looking 1 comment up from his and seeing my 'more complete' debunking regarding the 30 second hijack time.. (look on the 1st page, just above his comment...)

Don't be too concerned. Too many people seem to assume that Red and the other trolls are genuine truthers with an interest in pursuing truth. They ain't. As trolls their objective is to get other members to "bite". So the more on topic your point and the stronger the argument the less likely they will answer. The last thing they want is on-topic reasoned debate.

I am generally against feeding trolls BUT on the rare occasions I do comment I count it as success if they do not respond. The reasoning supporting that attitude should be self evident.

 

[000063]

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

Saying that someone who can't say they were wrong about a minor point of their argument indicates they can't be trusted to determine whether any part of their argument is wrong is a pot shot? Maybe, if this were isolated behavior, instead of a repeated pattern of such from the hypothetical individual.

You still aren't actually answering, just taking a "pot shot" at me. Answer my points about the squawk box, and provide evidence.

 

[RedIbis]

You guys can be exceedingly tedious when you pile up, say nearly nothing and expect me to respond to each and every rant.

I'm going to restate for brevity why the panel is skeptical on this point. A source reports that the CVR records the pilot calling "Mayday" and then 30 seconds later, something to the effect of "get out of here." It is then reasonable to assume that it took the hijackers 30 seconds to enter the cockpit, yet the code was not entered.

Despite what such hallowed experts as Beachnut and Reheat have suggested, it does not take 30 seconds to enter the code. Thus, the panel is skeptical that none of the eight pilots had entered the code. Now, I'm open to why a skeptic should not be skeptical that none of the eight pilots sqwaked the code, but I haven't heard anything from our rabble other than I'm a stupid twoofer, more or less. Try again, guys.

 

[DGM]

Try again, guys.

They had other pressing things to do, like figure out what was actually going on and fly the plane. They also knew that it was not a magic, save our ass solution to the problems at hand. Pilots are taught to also prioritize, squawking this code is not on the top of the list.

 

[RedIbis]

They had other pressing things to do, like figure out what was actually going on and fly the plane. They also knew that it was not a magic, save our ass solution to the problems at hand. Pilots are taught to also prioritize, squawking this code is not on the top of the list.

This is what I mean by debunking that does nothing but offer some rather lame excuse. So far no one has presented evidence that any of the eight pilots entered the code. You'd think that would be the first thing they'd do. What do you think they had to do instead, heat up some soup in the microwave?

 

[DGM]

This is what I mean by debunking that does nothing but offer some rather lame excuse. So far no one has presented evidence that any of the eight pilots entered the code. You'd think that would be the first thing they'd do. What do you think they had to do instead, heat up some soup in the microwave?

Maybe fly the plane and figure out what's going on? Why do you think it should be the first thing on their list? Apparently the pilots that were there didn't think so.

 

[RedIbis]

Maybe fly the plane and figure out what's going on? Why do you think it should be the first thing on their list? Apparently the pilots that were there didn't think so.

Considering that the code can be transmitted verbally as well, makes your debunking particularly weak.

 

[Reheat]

but I haven't heard anything from our rabble other than I'm a stupid twoofer, more or less.

You keep validating that thought again and again.

There is no higher level of alert than a MAYDAY call that can be transmitted to the ground from an aircraft in flight. Why did not all of the flights transmit a MAYDAY call? Anyone with a 3 digit IQ should be able to reasonably speculate the reason for that. Obviously, they didn't have time. As has been pointed out repeatedly the hijack code is not a critical action item at any time for any reason. This entire line of thought grasped at by twoofers is just another indicator of their stupidity and IS NOT a reason to be skeptical at all. It simply validated the probability that the cockpit crew were subject to a rapid violent attack, specifically designed to prevent them from raising an alert to the ground. Why you keep trying to defend this crap only you know....

 

[DGM]

Considering that the code can be transmitted verbally as well, makes your debunking particularly weak.

Explain again what I'm "debunking"? What again are you speculating this means? That the planes were not hijacked? That the original pilots were in on it? Tell us what this "best evidence" leads us to?