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

[Orphia Nay]

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.

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.

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

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

 

[Edx]

HAHAHAH OMG I LOVE IT

The first point is...

The Best Evidence

The FBI did not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which Osama bin Laden is wanted.

So dumb its just painful to watch these guys after all this time.

 

[Edx]

The Official Account

NIST wrote as if no one – including members of the Fire Department of New York – gave evidence of explosions in the Twin Towers.

The Best Evidence

Over 100 of the roughly 500 members of the FDNY who were at the site that day reported what they described as explosions in the Twin Towers. Similar reports were given by journalists, police officers, and WTC employees.

And apparently they still don't understand that no one says there weren't explosions.

Just that explosions are common in innumerable fires and even in situations where there is no fire! Where people have used the word explosion and even the phrase "sounding like a bomb" to describe sounds that they already knew werent actually explosives before they said it!

Why is this so difficult to understand, truthers?

 

[twinstead]

I for one find it suspicious that nobody has investigated the role of freight trains in causing tornadoes, for all the reports of hearing them during one.

 

[TJM]

Point 14:

The official account

Truthers are ******* insane.

The best evidence

This.

 

[cantonear1968]

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/

You know, my first thought was, like Edx, to laugh uncontrollably. But it made me mad. Angry that they still peddle the demonstrably false claims they have been proven wrong on multiple occasions. Mad because they bury their heads in the sand to avoid seeing the evidence which proves them wrong (ala Ryan Mackey's white paper refuting David Ray Griffin's which DRG REFUSES to read.). Mad because this is yet another steaming pile of @#$% that some 14 yr old is going to reference because he doesn't know better.

But then I remember that in 10 years of failure this is the best they can do to keep their money train rolling. And then I'm ok because I could care less if some fool wants to donate their money to them. I have to put them in the same category as the UFO conventions. The TV psychics/televangelists. If this is how someone wants to spend their money, so be it. It's not like there's any fear of them actually doing any damage with it.

 

[Reactor drone]

Their interpretation of Shyam Sunder's words seems a tad optimistic to me,


Their claims in bold with their supporting Sunder quote below,

Shyam Sunder, the head of NIST’s WTC project, said – speaking within the framework of its claim that the building was brought down by fire – that free fall would have been physically impossible.


Scientific analysis shows that a free-fall collapse of a steel-framed building could not be produced by fire, that is, without explosives (a fact that NIST’s lead investigator, Shyam Sunder acknowledged in his discussions of NIST’s Draft Report for Public Comment in August 2008).

Sunder said: “[A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it. . . . [T]he . . . time that it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous”

 

[pgimeno]

This is a good explanation on why this thread failed to produce any good truther theory: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185004

Thanks, Orphia.

 

[BasqueArch]

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.

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.

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

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

Ahhhh,
finally codified ...
the Official Truther Myths

 

[ozeco41]

This could be the beginning of the end for "trutherism".

We see once again the linking of a political goal to a number of patently false technical claims. The political goal could be worthwhile - I don't comment either way. Something like "expose faulty political processes of decision making which were used to justify war".

But surely it is political suicide to attempt to gain support for a review of the political decision making processes which led to war whilst they base their claim on a number of such patently untrue technical claims?

I can only comment with authority on the technical claims for WTC collapses which fall into my area of professional expertise - civil/structural engineer with military engineer training and experience.

Those claims are all false. They are built on readily identifiable strawmen, misrepresentations of the "official explanations" or other forms of false claims or mendacity.

Given that the people responsible for this "Concensus" have each at least a modicum of intelligence they must know that they are misrepresenting the official explanations. They must know that worldwide professional opinion does not support these technical claims.

So how do they expect to build political momentum to take action on their political concerns when they stand those concerns on a foundation which they must be fully aware will be rejected. The technical claims will deservedly be thrown out by anyone with political clout. And the political concerns will be thrown out with the technical claims.

If this is the best they can do - the end must be near.

 

[Robrob]

Experience, based on physical observation and scientific knowledge, shows that office fires, even with the aid of jet fuel, could not have reached temperatures greater than 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit (1,000 degrees Celsius).
But multiple scientific reports show that metals in the Twin Towers melted. These metals included steel, iron, and molybdenum – which normally do not melt until they reach 2,700˚F (1482˚C), 2,800˚F (1538˚ C), and 4,753˚F (2,623˚C), respectively.

"Although steel does not burn, it loses strength in a fire, which can lead to a structural failure. Above 500°F, steel starts to lose its structural integrity, and at 600°F, steel loses 75 percent of its strength, according to International Paint. Interchar and other Chartek fireproofing materials swell to provide a tough and stable insulating layer over the steel to protect it."

Their own research shows the fires reached temperatures three times greater than required to reduce the load bearing capacity (of a building already damaged by aircraft impact) by 75%

Truthers are their own worst enemies!

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

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

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

Point 1: A Claim Regarding Osama Bin Laden

The Best Evidence

The FBI did not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which Osama bin Laden is wanted. [...]

So, wait... one of the best pieces of evidence that the "official account" of 9/11 is bogus is, basically, that the government was incomplete in their coverup? Doesn't that require the assumption that the "official account" of 9/11 is bogus? Talk about circular...

 

[Orphia Nay]

I gather the website has been up and running for about two months, yet this has barely registered on the truther radar. Why would that be?

Not even 9/11 Blogger is pimping it...

I came across only two posts about it on 9/11 Blogger (both by "Joe"):

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-10-28/movie-trailer-science-september-11
"Are you aware of CONSENSUS911.ORG??

http://www.consensus911.org/

Twice I've submitted a blog post about it. But it does not get posted."

and:

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-11-06/its-time-occupy-building-7

"Why is Consensus911 off limits at 911blogger?
http://www.consensus911.org/"

 

[sylvan8798]

So, wait... one of the best pieces of evidence that the "official account" of 9/11 is bogus is, basically, that the government was incomplete in their coverup? Doesn't that require the assumption that the "official account" of 9/11 is bogus? Talk about circular...

I think the "reasoning" is that the FBI just couldn't lie about Bin Laden's role, even though they could lie about any and every thing else. Just couldn't bring themselves to lie about that one thing. Couldn't do it. No. Unbearable to even think about such a heinous, slanderous accusation...

 

[sylvan8798]

A simplified Delphi method was used over a six-month period to arrive at the Panel’s Consensus Points regarding the official account of the events of September 11, 2001.

The Delphi technique is used in medicine and other applied sciences to generate consensus statements of the best available evidence for treatment protocols, using a series of surveys in which the expert respondents are blind to one another.
To establish the best evidence with regard to the alleged events of 9/11, a group of proposed Consensus Points (formulated by Dr. David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth) were initially evaluated by four persons expert in 9/11 evidence – persons who remained blind to one another during the process.

Their feedback was incorporated into the Points, which were then forwarded to a further 19 people with expertise in 9/11 evidence – also blind to one another.
The larger group rankings and feedback were in turn incorporated into the formulations, and two further rounds of review were conducted, again blind, for all participants who still had reservations about any of the Points or their supporting references.

And blind to reality as well, apparently. If anyone here wants to try assembling a set of Reality Consensus Points, I'm willing to be on a panel.

 

[Hokulele]

Is it just me, or are points 4, 5, and 8 all pretty much the same thing?

Also, their consensus on what happened on 9/11 is pretty much a consensus on what didn't happen on 9/11. I wonder when there will ever be a coherent consensus of what they think actually happened...

 

[sylvan8798]

Is it just me, or are points 4, 5, and 8 all pretty much the same thing?

Also, their consensus on what happened on 9/11 is pretty much a consensus on what didn't happen on 9/11. I wonder when there will ever be a coherent consensus of what they think actually happened...

Here's your error . No thinking anywhere in evidence.

 

[cjnewson88]

Oh dear, the fail is strong on so many points of theirs.. Just noting on one, where they insist the pilots should have entered 7500 into the transponder before the hijackers cut their throats..

According to this utter fail cascade of a list, the hijackers took 30 seconds to break into the cockpit. They cite This as their evidence.. however a quick look indicates who ever analysed it either could not read or spoke English as a second language...

The prosecutors Tuesday played two other tapes from the cockpit that were picked up by ground control. In those tapes, the pilots shouted as hijackers broke into the cockpit.

"Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!" a pilot screamed in the first tape.

In the second tape, 30 seconds later, a pilot shouted: "Mayday! Get out of here! Get out of here!"

Furthermore, listening to the actual mayday call from United 93 makes it clear that both calls were made during a struggle.

Total fail case, and proven liars. And they wonder why the movement is dead..

 

[beachnut]

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. http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w194/orphia/Smileys/hehe.gif

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. http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w194/orphia/Smileys/hehe.gif

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

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

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
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.

What a big load of BS. Extra credit BS.

I find it hard to believe these people are human. Yes pilots are trained to squawk the hijack code. But it is like texting, you can't be fighting for your life and set the code. Plus, there is no code for, "oh crap, I am being killed". Plus, I doubt you are able to set the code when you have warm blood running down your chest because your attacker cut your throat...

We set the hijacking code when needed to inform ATC of the hijacking. There is no rush, it takes 20 minute or more to land from cruise, why do you have to set a code in 30 seconds, or two minutes. There is no code for being killed! What a bunch of nuts.

When you are distracted by idiots killing your crew, and you don't figure out you should crash land NOW and kill your attackers, setting the hijack code is not a priority!

I can't believe there are humans who demand the label moron as much as these dolts in 911 truth. What a waste of bandwidth in the genome.

 

[Robrob]

Point 13:

"...this exchange between Cheney and the young man – which can most naturally be understood as Cheney’s confirmation of a stand-down order – could not have occurred."

Or, as the actual participants have testified - a confirmation to shoot down the planes.

MR. ROEMER: So about 9:25 or 9:26. And your inference was that the vice president snapped his head around and said, "Yes, the order still stands." Why did you infer that that was a shoot-down?
MR. MINETA: Just by the nature of all the events going on that day, the scrambling of the aircraft and, I don't know; I guess, just being in the military, you do start thinking about it, an intuitive reaction to certain statements being made.

And...

MR. MINETA: Then about that time someone broke into our phone conversation and said, "Mr. Secretary, we've had a call from an Arlington County police officer saying that he saw an American Airlines airplane go into the Pentagon."

So much for the "no-planers?"