Please Denounce the Whoppers (big lies)

[progge]

Show me where the Commission actually verifies (in the Report) that the FAA information on United 93 was purely a projection. Show me where the Commission discusses the evidence for that. Show me where the Commission discusses projections, and how the FAA distinguishes between projections and actual radar signal.

Show me where the Commission discusses alternative possibilities. Show me where the Commission actually verifies that the FAA information was a projection. (No "may have" crap.) Show me where the Commission discusses FAA records and testimony from the air traffic controllers, about the alleged projection.

You can't, because the Commission doesn't.

This is correct.

Far from investigating, the Commission just made up something (that the FAA "may have" done) [...].

This is wrong, and you were told about it being wrong.
Remember this posting. See, for some details, this thread.
Read the Linda Justice and John Werth MFRs; listen to the Herndon Tapes; read what Miles Kara wrote about UA 93; read Lynn Spencer´s rebuttal to Farmer et al.
There´s plenty of information. Do not limit yourself to the 9/11 CR to evaluate if something is "made up" or not.

 

[carlitos]

How about this: when one reads an article, and one encounters a nonsense statement, that's a clue that the article is unreliable and may be propaganda. If one is in the middle of reading the article with approval, that should lead to an epiphany -- "Wait a minute!"

No.

 

[jaydeehess]

How about this: when one reads an article, and one encounters a nonsense statement, that's a clue that the article is unreliable and may be propaganda. If one is in the middle of reading the article with approval, that should lead to an epiphany -- "Wait a minute!"

I HAVE often encountered articles in which I do that mental double take because I realize the author got it wrong.

I noted in another post that I had read an article that described an electric current as a voltage. That is patently wrong, it is always wrong, HOWEVER, I understand that it is wrong and what the author was trying to say. It does not mean that the author was deliberatly lieing or attempting to skew the reader's viewpoint.

In another instance I watched a press conference by the NTSB concerning the crash of a passenger jet in Queens, NY. At this conference the NTSB tech was describing the g acellerations that the aircraft experienced (as recorded in the FDR) in the last moments of flight. At least 15 times reporters asked the spokesperson to explain what a 'g' was, what 'acelleration' was, what a 'vertical stabilizer' was.
I literally cringed every time a reporter displayed how utterly unqualified they were to be covering a technical breifing. I even wrote to an old friend who is now the Dean of a school of Journalism praising him for insisting that his undergrads all be required to take a general science course. Unfortunately this is not common.
REPORTERS MAKE MISTAKES, and they make more mistakes when covering feilds they know little about.

As far as Pop-Sci's article it has been pointed out many times that they also published an article that is accurate in reporting how many secondary returns a controller is responsible for. IF Pop-Sci is trying to mis-lead the public then they are not doing very good job of it if they publish accurate information later now are they!

 

[Dave Rogers]

How about this: when one reads an article, and one encounters a nonsense statement, that's a clue that the article is unreliable and may be propaganda. If one is in the middle of reading the article with approval, that should lead to an epiphany -- "Wait a minute!"

And then, if one is capable of critical thinking, one goes on to evaluate the content of the article against other sources. Having spent the last couple of years doing just that, I'm confident that the general conclusion of the article - that there was insufficient warning of the attacks to carry out all the steps, from becoming aware of the hijacking to vectoring fighters on to a target, for any of the flights to be intercepted - is correct, notwithstanding the fact that some points raised within it are capable of misinterpretation.

Alternatively, if one is a conspiracy theorist, one studies events for several years, finds one small anomaly - that may even be an error in a secondary source, and hence irrelevant - and concludes that all the evidence in favour of the general understanding of events is therefore invalidated.

There is a difference between thinking 'Wait a minute!' and concluding that everything one has ever been told is untrue. We think critically, and evaluate evidence, rather than display knee-jerk denialism.

Dave

 

[jaydeehess]

To be fair Dave, knee jerk denialism is an entrenched coping mechanism in modern western society.

 

[beachnut]

No whopper lie, someone making up a whopper misunderstanding that leads to nothing. Balsamo is like this, he takes small things he does not understand, or takes things very extremely literally and makes up delusions. A literalistic conspiracy theorist, with extreme tangential tendencies.

 

[EventHorizon]

I noted in another post that I had read an article that described an electric current as a voltage. That is patently wrong, it is always wrong, HOWEVER, I understand that it is wrong and what the author was trying to say. It does not mean that the author was deliberatly lieing or attempting to skew the reader's viewpoint.

Nope, in Troother land, there is no such thing as a mistake. Only lies to hide the obvious trooth.

 

[gumboot]

Did you even read what I wrote? The Commission made a monstrous claim about FAA and ATC, based on essentially zero evidence.

They did, what exactly?

Show me where the Commission actually verifies (in the Report) that the FAA information on United 93 was purely a projection. Show me where the Commission discusses the evidence for that. Show me where the Commission discusses projections, and how the FAA distinguishes between projections and actual radar signal.

Show me where the Commission discusses alternative possibilities. Show me where the Commission actually verifies that the FAA information was a projection. (No "may have" crap.) Show me where the Commission discusses FAA records and testimony from the air traffic controllers, about the alleged projection.

Why would the Commission Report detail all of this? The report is intended to present their findings not every scrap of information they processed and the myriad of different scenarios they investigated. Such a report, containing all of that, would be a complex monstrosity of such epic proportions it would put the 10,000 pages of the NIST report to shame. No one would read it. No one could read it.

All of what you ask for is available - in the surrounding primary data that has been released at various times. If you're too lazy to go look for it the problem is with you, not the 9/11 Commission.

Far from investigating, the Commission just made up something (that the FAA "may have" done) to reconcile an otherwise blatant contradiction in its story.

There is extensive evidence supporting the notion that UA93's TSD track continued to close on Washington DC after the aircraft crashed. This should surprise no one, since this is exactly what a TSD track should do. And UA93 was hardly unique. At least one other flight (AA11) and possibly others continued on the TSD right to their destinations and landed.

If you can't bother to perform the most basic of research to gain an understanding of 9/11, why on earth should we waste valuable time discussing anything with you?

 

[Jono]

To be fair Dave, knee jerk denialism is an entrenched coping mechanism in modern western society.

And not just specific to 'modern' or even 'western' societies.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The OP is whitewash! Debunked long ago with evidence & common sense! Only big lies coming from anyone is the TM, Truthers, Alex Jones, Steven Jones, DRG & Richard Gage.

 

[JohnM307]

The OP is whitewash! Debunked long ago with evidence & common sense! Only big lies coming from anyone is the TM, Truthers, Alex Jones, Steven Jones, DRG & Richard Gage.

What about my original post was debunked long ago? Quick summary of the PM section:

1. PM claimed that ATC has to search the entire USA for an aircraft whose transponder is turned off.

2. PM's claim is manifestly absurd.

The whole business with the PM claims in this thread was a mass of incompetence, malice, and pathological illiteracy.

It's possible that my assessment of CR section may have to be modified somewhat, based on some information that appeared amidst the flames. But given the major incompetence and malice displayed, that information will have to be verified independently.

The way the section was written is not how it would have been written had the Commission simply intended to tell what happened. The Commission would have included at least a few sentences -- perhaps a paragraph, describing TSD, perhaps describing coast-mode radar, somehow indicating the kind of information the Secret Service was getting from the FAA, some reference to what the Secret Service agents actually saw. There would have been discussion of misunderstandings of display signals.

In short, the Commission would have added a few sentences to tell us what the Secret Service actually saw, what the FAA actually did, what misunderstandings occurred. None of this "may have" crap.

The Commission essentially accused the FAA of sending information on an approaching aircraft, and it turns out to be a projection, a fake, a phantom -- for the 2nd time! (The 1st being the Phantom Flight 11, of course.) So the FAA is singularly delinquent of notifying NORAD of actual aircraft losing contact, going off-course, being hijacked. Then when the FAA does send timely information, it turns out both times to be projections, false alarms, phantoms.

The first report of the approaching aircraft occurred at 10:02, before United 93 crashed. Actual USSS records were cited for that, as expected since the Secret Service reported the aircraft. But USSS records weren't cited for their updates; instead DOD transcript of a conference call was cited. Something is strange here -- further USSS records were not cited. Why?

The CR tells us that the information "may have" been projection rather than actual aircraft position, with essentially zero evidence. That's how they reconcile the account of the approaching aircraft with the crash time of 10:03.

So was the Commission trying to simply tell what happened? If so, they left out much information. Or were they trying to pull something over on us? Perhaps they wanted to falsely position the well-known story of VP Cheney after the United 93 crash, instead of at 9:55 (involving an unknown aircraft) or 9:30 (involving American 77). After all, the Commission insisted on placing VP Cheney very late in the PEOC -- after stalling in the tunnel over 20 minutes.

 

[aggle-rithm]

It's possible that my assessment of CR section may have to be modified somewhat, based on some information that appeared amidst the flames. But given the major incompetence and malice displayed, that information will have to be verified independently.

You'd better get started.

Let us know how it comes out.

 

[MikeW]

The Commission essentially accused the FAA of sending information on an approaching aircraft, and it turns out to be a projection, a fake, a phantom -- for the 2nd time! (The 1st being the Phantom Flight 11, of course.) So the FAA is singularly delinquent of notifying NORAD of actual aircraft losing contact, going off-course, being hijacked. Then when the FAA does send timely information, it turns out both times to be projections, false alarms, phantoms.

Who says the "phantom flight 11" was based on a projection?

 

[gumboot]

The Commission essentially accused the FAA of sending information on an approaching aircraft, and it turns out to be a projection, a fake, a phantom -- for the 2nd time! (The 1st being the Phantom Flight 11, of course.) So the FAA is singularly delinquent of notifying NORAD of actual aircraft losing contact, going off-course, being hijacked. Then when the FAA does send timely information, it turns out both times to be projections, false alarms, phantoms.

You don't know what you're talking about. The FAA didn't "send" the USSS anything. The USSS has access to the FAA's TSD, which is a display of current flight paths logged into the system. Properly linked aircraft are updated in the TSD automatically, but ATC can also update flight paths manually. In the case of AA11 and UA93 ATC didn't know exactly what was going on so they created new flight path entries to track the wayward hijacked flights. The USSS were monitoring these new tracks, which were not updated because ATC didn't know what had happened to the aircraft. As a result these new tracks continued after the aircraft had crashed, resulting in the erroneous reports.

 

[carlitos]

You'd better get started.

Let us know how it comes out.

Seconded.