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

[RedIbis]

Quoting for ... well, Truth. Anyone wasting their time engaging the sad remnants of the Truth movement here has to accept that progress towards a goal is not their objective. It's been ten years, and RedIbis can't conceive of a plausible hypothesis. There is a reason for that.

Oh, I can conceive a plausible hypothesis but I'm not interested in chumming the waters with speculation. Speculation is irresponsible discourse. There's nearly nothing to be learned about what we think "really happened." There's only those reports that we either wholeheartedly accept purely based on faith or approach with a reasonable level of skepticism due to the strength of their evidence.

 

[NoahFence]

Would you just answer the question so we can move on?

What would have changed if they put the code in?

Speculation is irresponsible discourse.

Too funny.

That's ALL you truthers have is speculation! All your theories start with (asinine) speculation and move quickly downhill from there!

 

[NoahFence]

There's nearly nothing to be learned about what we think "really happened."

Incorrect.

There is something you and your kind can learn.

That 9/11 when viewed in its entirety, is impossible to have been anything other than 19 hijackers + 4 targets = 3,000 dead.

When looked at in its entirety, we find that no matter what magical substance you can conjure up, it can't survive the impacts and fire at WTCs 1 and 2. You see quickly that WTC 7 is irrelevant. That the Pentagon cannot be connected to the events in NYC. You think that Silverstein had something to do with the Pentagon?

See - you hit this wall of absurdity. What you think happened is impossible.

 

[NoahFence]

RedIbis - your lack of response on that last post of mine is exactly what I'm talking about.

Congrats for making my point.

 

[triforcharity]

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

You keep forgetting that the FIRST thing, and the most IMPORTANT thing, is keying up the radio and saying the word "MAYDAY". Anyone that hears that, stops EVERYTHING and pays attention to ONLY that person. No matter where they are.

After the collapses of the WTC towers, "Maydays" were broadcast on every FDNY frequency in use in lower Manhattan. EVERYONE stopped what they were doing, and paid attention.

Why is this so hard for you to understand???

 

[beachnut]

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.

You posted the book answer from AIM. Did you fail to read it? Pilots in contact with ATC don't need to squawk the hijacking code.

Posting AIM debunked your claim.

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

When ATC is busy, instead of stepping on other aircraft transmissions, you can set the code for emergency, or hijacking to get immediate attention so your actions do not create a hazard to other traffic! Then ATC tries to talk to you, and they will ask you to stop the code, and assign you a code, or your old code.

let me say it again...
If we can talk to ATC, we tell them we are hijacked on the radio, no need to set the code, they now know it! If I set the hijack code to get attention, ATC will have me stop the code when we talk! Do you understand this, or are you unable to comprehend?

Using the code, is like yelling at ATC; "hey, I need help". We can use the radio and skip setting the code. This is what AIM says, you posted AIM, do you need more help understanding the stuff you referenced?

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.

Being attacked in the cockpit is not a hijack code, it is a MAYDAY, an emergency, you would not set the code, you would fight your attackers. We are not trained to fight while facing forward strapped in with a seat belt and shoulder harnesses! The attackers have the best position, more room.

This was not a hijacking, it was murder. Do you need a lesson on what a real hijacking of an aircraft was like before 911?

If the pilot stop the attack, they talk on the radio, no need to set the code, unless they are unable to talk to ATC, then using the code is cool. Ask a rational question if you don't understand, you posted the book answer from AIM, but you failed to comprehend what it means. Are you having problem comprehending pilot procedures?

... I doubt any plane you attempted to fly ever got higher than a few feet.

Wow, the same as your claims on 911. You failed to do research again.
My avatar is me. The plane is the T-38 supersonic trainer, I have 100 to 112 hours in it; I pulled 7.33 g in the darn thing. I graduated from UPT 6 Oct 75, got my wings. I write poorly and look like a dork, go ahead attack me, you might get something right eventually, you can't do 911. I have controlled planes since 73. I want to thank you if you paid taxes for sending me to UPT to fly jets. We use the code in our transponders to alert ATC when we don't have radios! In the past radios were not as reliable as today, and most planes have 2 to 3 radios to use, so lost comm is not as bad now.
I can fly and take pictures at the same time.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/37org.jpg 1974 in a T-37. About to be higher than a few feet.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/f4onwingAR.jpg F-4 on my wing. Just a little higher than a few feet.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1tankerflight.jpg I flew KC-135s, here we are refueling a WX bird near 45S out of Perth. Is this higher than few feet?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Iamapilot2.jpg Here is my FAA rating. You can look up my FAA info at the FAA.

I know you like to fashion yourself some kind of expert, but if you fly planes like you write and use logic, ...

You don't understand pilot procedures, you can't decode my poor writing skills, you can't understand 911. I was giving you my thoughts on the issue, if you can't comprehend them, it is indicative of your inability to understand 911, and the fact not setting the hijack code only means the hijack code was not set, nothing more because the pilots had radio contract. They never said much because they were attacked and killed.



You posted AIM which debunks your claim on this issue.

Expert, maybe not, I have flown since 73 in various jobs, I was chief instructor pilot of my unit, but anyone reading AIM, which you posted, knows from what you posted you are wrong. Anyone can understand this issue, and have knowledge to correct me by reading AIM. You should have retracted your moronic claims after you posted AIM. You failed. Anyone can know more than I by reading, RIF. You could have corrected yourself but you failed.

 

[NoahFence]

I hate flying. I have no desire to learn anything about it.

Yet everything that Beachnut posts makes perfect sense to me. How's that work, Red?

 

[Oystein]

Oh, I can conceive a plausible hypothesis but I'm not interested in chumming the waters with speculation. Speculation is irresponsible discourse. There's nearly nothing to be learned about what we think "really happened." There's only those reports that we either wholeheartedly accept purely based on faith or approach with a reasonable level of skepticism due to the strength of their evidence.

And I say you lie. I say you cannot conceive a plausible hypothesis. I say you are utterly at a loss when trying to conceive a plausible hypothesis. You couldn't conceive a plausible hypothesis if your life depended on it.

In fact, in 10 years, no-one in the entire truth movement has yet conceived a plausible hypothesis. It's not out there. No-one is pointing to it. My thread the "Roll-call" which you call a "gambit", is clear proof of it: It's older than a year, and not a single truther has tried to write down a plausible hypothesis that even one other truther could accept. It just doesn't happen. Does Griffin have a plausible hypothesis? Does Gage have a plausible hypothesis? Does Wood have a plausible hypothesis? Does Balsamo have a plausible hypothesis? Does Baker have a plausible hypothesis? Does Avery have a plausible hypothesis? Does A. Jones have a plausible hypothesis? Does S. Jones have a plausible hypothesis? Does Harrit have a plausible hypothesis? Does RedIbis have a plausible hypothesis? No to all of them.


There
is
no
plausible
hypothesis.
Period
.

 

[djlunacee]

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.

What part of the PROCEDURE do you not understand? Setting the code is down the list, according to what you posted, there are other options to be exhausted before sending the transponder code. Either you are truly hard headed or being deliberatly obtuse on this point, which is it? And no skepticism is not what you're practicing, it is denialism.

As far as a "new" type of hijacking, could you please show me another hijacking in history where the pilots have been murdered or some kind of demand by the hijacker's were not put forth. You can't, that is why it is a new type of hijacking.

This is a classic reason why conspiracy theorists are laughed at, and mocked.
Playing dumb doesn't make you a skeptic, it proves your ignorance. The sheer stupidity to think that a pilot struggling to survive an attack would have the means or ability to punch a 4 digit code into a transponder, while being strapped into a seat, having his throat cut and being stabbed by multiple attackers is assinine at best.

 

[carlitos]

And I say you lie. I say you cannot conceive a plausible hypothesis. I say you are utterly at a loss when trying to conceive a plausible hypothesis. You couldn't conceive a plausible hypothesis if your life depended on it.

In fact, in 10 years, no-one in the entire truth movement has yet conceived a plausible hypothesis. It's not out there. No-one is pointing to it. My thread the "Roll-call" which you call a "gambit", is clear proof of it: It's older than a year, and not a single truther has tried to write down a plausible hypothesis that even one other truther could accept. It just doesn't happen. Does Griffin have a plausible hypothesis? Does Gage have a plausible hypothesis? Does Wood have a plausible hypothesis? Does Balsamo have a plausible hypothesis? Does Baker have a plausible hypothesis? Does Avery have a plausible hypothesis? Does A. Jones have a plausible hypothesis? Does S. Jones have a plausible hypothesis? Does Harrit have a plausible hypothesis? Does RedIbis have a plausible hypothesis? No to all of them.


There
is
no
plausible
hypothesis.
Period
.

There was a similar pattern to my even-earlier thread, but a few other posters did post theories, including the 9/11Investigator's execrable Mossad theory.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4947137#post4947137

And, as noted, RedIbis has been doing this no-claim thing for a while, so there's no point engaging.

 

[Oystein]

There was a similar pattern to my even-earlier thread, but a few other posters did post theories, including the 9/11Investigator's execrable Mossad theory.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4947137#post4947137

And, as noted, RedIbis has been doing this no-claim thing for a while, so there's no point engaging.

Thanks for the link. Two posts further down, Stellafane expresses it beautifully:

Hi RedIbis. I give you some points for at least posting in this thread, something other Truthers have thus far avoided.

As to your question above, the thing that's wrong with simply trying to poke holes in the "OCT" without offering any cogent alternative theory is that it's ultimately impotent. You see, I believe the OCT not because I'm a Bush loyalist (voted against him twice, more if they'd have let me) or think America can do no wrong. I believe it because by far, it's the theory that best fits all the available evidence. I've yet to see an alternative theory that can even stand on its own weight without collapsing into a mess of self-contradictions, never mind be able to explain the evidence. Thus right now, the OCT is the only theory that makes any sense. And I see nothing currently on the horizon that has even a remote chance to compete with it.

Now of course, as with any theory there's going to be some minor odds and ends that taken at face value may look a little odd or anomalous. Here's an example. Let's say you accept the theory that the moon is much closer to Earth than the stars, since it makes so much sense and the evidence for it is so strong. Yet I know of people who insist that they have seen stars within the dark portion of a sliver moon. Such a sight should be impossible under the current moon theory. Should we then toss it out, along with everything that we know, to accommodate the evidence presented by these eyewitnesses? Do we invent some bizarre and convoluted theory to incorporate this evidence? Or do we simply accept that these reports are flawed or misinterpreted -- perhaps the witesses misremembered, or mistook a slow moving satellite for a star.

It seems to me that the 9/11 CT movement consists entirely of equally specious bits and pieces, minor misconceptions and errors that add up to nothing. That these little anomalous bits exist speaks not at all to the viability of the OCT. However, the fact that however you choose to connect the dots, no other theory can even be articulated with a straight face, speaks volumes. Because until CTers have such a theory, one that can be examined and stands up to scrutiny better than the OCT does, then what Truthers are doing amounts to little more than barking at the moon.

ETA: Interestingly, RedIbis replied to Stellafane with this:

I appreciate your thorough and civil response. For the sake of this discussion, and really nothing else, I would suggest that LIHOP is a theory which competes with the official story, and deserves equal investigative treatment.

Now if RedIbis thought back then that LIHOP is the best competing theory, then he is now facing a problem when he opines that pilots not squawking 7500 is suspicious: LIHOP is a theory where real airliners with real pilots were taken over by real, murderous terrorists and really crashed deliberately. AFAICS, there is no difference between the pilots's behaviour under either the "OCT" or a LIHOP theory.

RedIbis must either retract LIHOP and offer a different competing theory, or disagree with Point #10 of the Consensus 9/11 list.

 

[sylvan8798]

Oh, I can conceive a plausible hypothesis but I'm not interested in chumming the waters with speculation. Speculation is irresponsible discourse. There's nearly nothing to be learned about what we think "really happened." There's only those reports that we either wholeheartedly accept purely based on faith or approach with a reasonable level of skepticism due to the strength of their evidence.

A popular truther false dichotomy fallacy.

 

[000063]

I'd be happy to move on.

There's this button on your computer with a circle and a line. Press it.

 

[000063]

"Mr. Terrorist, please stop stabbing me for just a second. I've got a procedure to follow."

More of a slash, really.

 

[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.

Look at how carefully and misleadingly this is worded:

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.

Even though the Flight 93 pilots radioed a MAYDAY.

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.

Loaded words. This is their interpretation of what was supposedly happening.

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

They present "evidence" that Flight 93 pilots had 30 seconds and then expand the argument to all eight pilots, 6 of which we know nothing about what kind of time or opportunity they had. Hmm...none out of eight, could trouble me. None out of two, not so much.

The action was "required" - as in you get fired if you don't turn the dials to enter the code? as in ATC will ignore you if you use some other method? as in there was only a hijacking if you reported it correctly? Required or WHAT? Note the move from "if possible" to "required".

No wonder it took 6 months to come up with 13 measly items. They had to figure out how to parse the wording to make it look as bad as possible.

What a whole panel of maroons.

 

[cjnewson88]

Please feel free to respond to me any time RedIbis, I would love to hear you admit you were wrong about the Flight 93 mayday calls.

On a more personal note, I hold a commercial pilot licence, and I can confidently tell you, even if there was 30 seconds (which as I have proven you are wrong about [If you missed it, click Here) putting in 7500 into the transponder does not take a high priority in line of things and pilots do not rush to plug it in at moments notice of anything, especially when they don't have time to.

Feel free to reply, you seem to have ignored my last several posts.

 

[RedIbis]

I hate flying. I have no desire to learn anything about it.

Yet everything that Beachnut posts makes perfect sense to me. How's that work, Red?

That doesn't surprise me in the least.

 

[RedIbis]

Thanks for the link. Two posts further down, Stellafane expresses it beautifully:




ETA: Interestingly, RedIbis replied to Stellafane with this:

Now if RedIbis thought back then that LIHOP is the best competing theory,

Is that what you think it says?

 

[cjnewson88]

Any time RedIbis..

 

[LSSBB]

Is that what you think it says?

I see this as a completely disingenuous response. If what Oystein says is not what you intended to mean by providing LIHOP in response to Stellafane, then explain what you really did mean.