• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

RedIbis said:
Believing that the official narrative is supported by "irrefutable evidence" makes you a fundamentalist not a skeptic.
Click to expand...

Ah... but here in reality, I'm right. There IS irrefutable evidence.



There is however, none for your side of the fence. Only heresay, misinterpretation, and outright lies.

Every theory put forth by the truth movement is proven false an instant after the 1st impact at the Trade Towers.

And I never said I was a skeptic. I said being a skeptic ends when the answers are given. I was never a skeptic in regards to 9/11.
 
Orphia Nay said:
David Ray Griffin, William Veale, Elizabeth Woodworth and 21 of the usual suspects have decided that truthers need to try to agree on a few things. [qimg]http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w194/orphia/Smileys/hehe.gif[/qimg]

http://www.consensus911.org/

"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."

It took them 6 months to (mostly) agree on 13 statements. [qimg]http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w194/orphia/Smileys/hehe.gif[/qimg]

Here are the 13 pieces of "best evidence" from the 9/11 Truth Movement:

http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/
Click to expand...


I am amazed how this thread got so distracted. There is one novel aspect in this "9/11 Consensus Panel" - and that something is not the claims, the supposed evidence, or the people pushing this thing. The novel aspoect is the approach:

The Consensus Points were derived from a Delphi survey of over 20 expert panelists
Click to expand...

Why is this thread not focussing on this aspect?

So let's do it:

1. "Delphi method"

According to consensus911.org, ...
The Delphi Method is a standard consensus tool which uses an established methodology to advance scientific knowledge in fields such as medicine.
Click to expand...
According to Wikipedia however - which consensus911 links to!, ...
The Delphi method (play /ˈdɛlfaɪ/ del-fy) is a structured communication technique, originally developed as a systematic, interactive forecasting method which relies on a panel of experts.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, Wikipedia does NOT mention "medicine" as one science where the Delphy method is employed, nor any other particular science, nor does it talk about "advance knowledge". So from the very start, consensus911 misinforms their readers about their method. This should have everybody's alarm bells ringing.

From Wikipedia we learn further:
"If panelists are misinformed about a topic, the use of Delphi may only add confidence to their ignorance"​



2. "Experts"

WP:
panel of experts, who are selected for a reason, usually that they hold knowledge on an opinion or view.
Click to expand...
Let's see what the areas of expertise are of our panelists:

0: Aeronautical engineering
0: Physics and math education
0: Journalism
0: Aeronautical engineering
0: Geography and environmental science education
3: Aircraft accident investigator
1: Chemistry
0: Physics
2: Military and civilian Pilot
1: Military Pilot
0: Buddhism
0: Filmmaking
0: Law
0: Journalism
0: Psychological Counseling
0: Physical Therapy
0: Acting
0: Public Administration
0: Public Health
0: Economics
0: Journalism

And here are the Delphi facilitators' qualifications:
0: Theology
0: Law
0: Librarian

The number preceding the qualification is the number of claims out of the 13 that the panelist or facilitator is an expert for.

There is not a single expert on the panel for Points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13
There is only one expert on the panel for Points 9, 10, 11.
Only one Point (#12) has 3 experts (the pilots) to show for.

It is obvious that the panelists were not chosen bsed on their expertise in the pertinent fields of structural engineering, fire science, forensic investigation. Instead, many of them are known for already havin the opinion that the towers were CDed, flight 93 shot down, or other truther nonsense. They do not represent the full breadth of expert knowledge in the required fields.

Likewise, the 3 facilitators lack all expertise to facilitate the process.


Summary:

- The Delphi method is misapplied by consensus911 for deciding on state of knowledge instead of making a forecast
- The panel does not consist of experts
- Panelists were chosen not based on their knowledge but based on their opinons.
- The outcome of applying the Delphi method is therefore expected to be highly unreliable to the point of being worthless.
- consensus911 lies about what the Delphi method is
- consensus911 lies about the expertise of their panelists.


The "13 points of consensus" represent the consensus of a highly biased and non-random fringe of non-experts. Nothing more, nothing less. They have no reliable connection to actual knowledge of reality.


\thread
 
What fascinates me is that of all the things truthers have claimed over the past 10 years, these are the ones which the panel can agree on and consider the "best evidence".

Never in 10 years have I heard any mention of pilots not entering transponder codes (although I'm sure it's out there somewhere).

I've heard plenty against the "hijacker theory" about how phone calls can't be made from planes, hijackers are still alive, hijackers were bad pilots and could not have flown planes, hijackers names were not on list of passengers, you can't hijack planes with boxcutters, yada, yada. If the best thing they can now agree on is that pilots didn't enter codes => no hijacking, that doesn't bode well for their cause :rolleyes:.
 
sylvan8798 said:
...
Never in 10 years have I heard any mention of pilots not entering transponder codes (although I'm sure it's out there somewhere).
...
Click to expand...

I am not even sure what this is supposed to be evidence for. If all four planes were not hijacked - what else could have happened? Why does the "expert panel" not make predictions on that?
 
RedIbis said:
Believing that the official narrative is supported by "irrefutable evidence" makes you a fundamentalist not a skeptic.
Click to expand...
You debunked your claim, and refuse to correct yourself; not very skeptical. To ignore the evidence like 911 truth does, is called what? Ignorance. In this case 911 truth paranoid conspiracy theorists are making up best evidence based on their ignorance and biases. All their claims lack evidence and are not logical. You picked one of the dumbest claims and debunked it without knowing. Have you figured it out yet? No, you now mount a weak attack with this post since your claim went down in flames.

You posted evidence of pilot procedures which makes your claim on setting codes false, illogical, made up out of ignorance. Now you are reduced to weak attacks on others when you should be saying thank you for trying to explain pilot procedures. You are welcome.

The fact is pilots would tell ATC on the radio about hijacking. On 911 the pilots were attacked, the pilots never got a chance to figure out it was a new kind of hijacking. You act as if you are no terrorists did 911 kind of 911 truth Follower, and you fail to make a rational claim. We (sometimes) set the special transponder code when we can't get ATC attention, or we want ATC attention NOW. We would not need to set the hijack code on 911 if we were able to stop the cockpit attack, we would report on freq the event! You and 911 truth have failed, and you don't seem to have a clue you have failed after 10 years. 10 years is enough time to earn a PhD in something, and all 911 truth followers now have doctorates in failure; you all graduated super-nano-nonsense! Congratulation! yeah

Thank you for posting AIM, it clearly makes your claim illogical. good job
 
I'm still waiting for a reply for RedIbis regarding the recording of flight 93's mayday calls which both clearly show signs of struggle.
 
Hang on a moment. Griffin is saying that radio messages show that hijackers took 30 seconds to break into the cockpits and take over the planes, and that the fact that this would have been enough time to squawk 7500 on the transponder proves that... hijackers didn't really break into the cockpits and take over the planes?

That's as bad as using flight 77's FDR out of the Pentagon crash scene to prove that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. It's not even flawed, it's just plain moronic.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Hang on a moment. Griffin is saying that radio messages show that hijackers took 30 seconds to break into the cockpits and take over the planes, and that the fact that this would have been enough time to squawk 7500 on the transponder proves that... hijackers didn't really break into the cockpits and take over the planes?

That's as bad as using flight 77's FDR out of the Pentagon crash scene to prove that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. It's not even flawed, it's just plain moronic.

Dave
Click to expand...

You're forgetting Dave dis-info agents work in mysterious ways.. :rolleyes:
 
cjnewson88 said:
You're forgetting Dave dis-info agents work in mysterious ways.. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It's simply a new slant on trolling.

They publish old and dealt with many times claims (not the alleged "evidence") which can lead to round in circles discussion. Sure pure trolling as per several regular members here. The aim is ensure that no outcomes are reached, no decisions taken and doing so by any level of dishonesty required.

The reality is that all these published 13 claims go to matters already resolved to the satisfaction of reasoning honest people. In fact to the satisfaction of the "reasonable person" of legal lore. (The "man on the Clapham omnibus" for those familiar with the British legal tradition.)

So the initiative is not intended to progress any search for truth (veracity - the dictionary meaning before the truth movement bastardised the word.)

Rather it is simply another scheme to ensure no progress of discussion.

Trolling...:)

...and there will be many who choose to feed the trolls :rolleyes:
 
beachnut said:
We (sometimes) set the special transponder code when we can't get ATC attention, or we want ATC attention NOW. We would not need to set the hijack code on 911 if we were able to stop the cockpit attack, we would report on freq the event!
Click to expand...

Let me just assume for a moment that most of what you write on this forum isn't just irrational rambling and try to parse this nugget.

So pilots sometimes set the code when they want ATC attention immediately. Wouldn't the pilots want that?

Or, pilots wouldn't need to set the code if they were able to stop the attack? How in the hell would they be able to determine that? Especially since you claim this was a new kind of hijacking, whatever the hell that is.

I know you like to fashion yourself some kind of expert, but if you fly planes like you write and use logic, I doubt any plane you attempted to fly ever got higher than a few feet.
 
beachnut said:
... 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.
Click to expand...


And is it not likely that the terrorists knew how the codes would be set and took care that they were not? They would have known that the more uncertainty and delay there was, the better chance they would have of reaching their targets before being intercepted.
 
RedIbis said:
Let me just assume for a moment that most of what you write on this forum isn't just irrational rambling and try to parse this nugget.

So pilots sometimes set the code when they want ATC attention immediately. Wouldn't the pilots want that?

Or, pilots wouldn't need to set the code if they were able to stop the attack? How in the hell would they be able to determine that? Especially since you claim this was a new kind of hijacking, whatever the hell that is.

I know you like to fashion yourself some kind of expert, but if you fly planes like you write and use logic, I doubt any plane you attempted to fly ever got higher than a few feet.
Click to expand...

Bottom line this for me RedIbis -

Was there a hijacking or not? If not, why then were the pilots in on it?
If so, why would it matter if they put the code in or not? What would it change?
 
NoahFence said:
Bottom line this for me RedIbis -

Was there a hijacking or not? If not, why then were the pilots in on it?
If so, why would it matter if they put the code in or not? What would it change?
Click to expand...

As I've said from the get-go, the fact that not one of the eight pilots squawked the code raises a certain level of skepticism. And again, I don't find this point particularly strong.
 
RedIbis said:
As I've said from the get-go, the fact that not one of the eight pilots squawked the code raises a certain level of skepticism. And again, I don't find this point particularly strong.
Click to expand...

If they were hijacked, and put in the code, what would it have changed?
 
RedIbis said:
As I've said from the get-go, the fact that not one of the eight pilots squawked the code raises a certain level of skepticism. And again, I don't find this point particularly strong.
Click to expand...
Which is why you've been harping on it for days, of course.
 
NoahFence said:
If they were hijacked, and put in the code, what would it have changed?
Click to expand...
I know the answer to that question: the truthers would have claimed that it is very strange that the pilots could squawk that code in a situation where the cabin was being invaded, being a situation of distress as per the AIM manual, and that they should have used the MAYDAY procedure instead, and that that's a reason to cast doubts about the official version.
 
NoahFence said:
Was there a hijacking or not? If not, why then were the pilots in on it? If so, why would it matter if they put the code in or not? What would it change?
Click to expand...

For those who haven't been here a long time, this is how Red works...

He won't answer your question directly. He will use his pretended inability to understand what Beachnut and I have said about this as a diversion from the point of the thread and the point that the reason the hijack code was not set is that the pilots did not have time to set it. This has been established, but he won't acknowledge that and will continue to defend his fellow twoofers.

Later, he'll say he answered the question, but won't provide a link to his answer. The same tactic has been used over and over again and again for years...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom