Please Denounce the Whoppers (big lies)

[Macgyver1968]

But there were 4500 planes in the air across the whole country. So if Popular Mechanics say they have to search through 4500 blips they are automatically implying that the whole country needed to be searched.

If PM meant a particular air corridor then why use the national figure of 4500 blips?

You make a good point (gee..i've never said that here ) The article does not indicate that the 4500 number was the total number of planes in the country. So I'm not sure how that is implied. You would need know that 4500 was the total number of planes in the entire country from another source. I'll need to look it up...but if that number is indeed true, the PM got their number wrong. But, it doesn't qualify as a "whopper".

 

[Thunder]

i am fascinated that this is being talked about......in 2010.

just fascinated. i guess it will be talked about again in 2020.

oh well..what can ya do.

 

[vinniem]

You make a good point (gee..i've never said that here ) The article does not indicate that the 4500 number was the total number of planes in the country. So I'm not sure how that is implied. You would need know that 4500 was the total number of planes in the entire country from another source. I'll need to look it up...but if that number is indeed true, the PM got their number wrong. But, it doesn't qualify as a "whopper".

They didn't just get their number wrong, they deliberately chose the number of planes in total that were in the sky to make it seem like the hijacked planes ould be really hard to find

Here is a source for 4500 planes on 911:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmafp/is_200406/ai_n6841643/?tag=content;col1

I am sure there are many more.

How coincidental that PM managed to get their figure wrong but it matched the total number of planes.

 

[vinniem]

They did have to search the entire country because they didn't know how many planes had been hijacked or where they were. For all they knew the Sears tower in Chicago, the Transamerica Pyramid in San Francisco or some other notable structures were targets. It's one of the reasons that they decided to just shut it all down and sort it out on the ground.

They knew exactly which planes had switched the transponders off and they knew exactly where they were when they were switched off. Air traffic controllers are not amateurs.

 

[Scott Sommers]

This is rapidly becoming symptomatic of why the 911 Truth Movement can't attract any interest. JohnM307 - there's a problem that's so basic about 911 yet no one can explain it. Edx - yes, there's a perfectly good answer on (gives website). Truther Vinnie - if you have the answer, why don't you write it down here? Edx - the answer is over here, go read it. And on and on and on and on.

Vinnie, here's a hint. Go read the page that Edx refered you to and then come back and tell us what's wrong with it. That would sound much more convincing to people who have not made up their minds on this.

There were about 100 people at the We Are Change 911 demonstration this year. Now I know that 911 Truth is the social issue that's sweeping America and there are - I don;t know - 1 million or so signatures on some sort of petition for Truthing in NY, but there's no sign these people really exist. I don't believe they do because they never show up for any public display of anything. And the reason is because you guys argue like retards. In fact, the people who show are ALWAYS the same people and there are fewer of them every year.

If you want to be in some secret club or gang like the one they would never let you into in high school, go ahead. But then the only friends you'll be left with will be Truthers, and I bet you don't don't really like them either.

 

[rwguinn]

let it die, folks.
It is a complete rehash of every truther lie, distortion, and fabrication from the past 8 years.
Do we really need to go through this ******** for the 912th time?

 

[triforcharity]

Specifics please. Name one thing he gets wrong and back it up with something.

Is he wrong when he says that an ATC wouldn't have to look through 4500 planes to try and find one that has switched it's transponder off?

yes, look for the one without a transponder on. Der.

 

[Sabrina]

Oy.

I'll just touch on the first idiotic claim in that letter.

NEWS FLASH: I am not an ATC, but I do know that the RADAR coverage and the screen which shows the transponders of the various aircraft CANNOT be overlaid. In other words, if the plane's transponder is off and the ATC is looking at the transponder tracking, the plane with the transponder off WILL NOT SHOW ON THE SCREEN. Got it? IT WON'T BE VISIBLE NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU LOOK.

Switching to RADAR coverage immediately removes ALL the identifying information of the flights in question and merely shows the tracks, making it virtually impossible to pick the one flight you need to be tracking out, especially if it's in a high-traffic area. And from what I recall of seeing the RADAR coverage an ATC would be able to see, pretty much the entire friggin' USA is a high-traffice area.

That answer your question Vinnie? This guy gets something COMPLETELY wrong straight out of the chute, and then goes on to repeat tired, debunked nonsense that was covered between 2004-2006 and presents it like it's new evidence of an INSIDEJOBZOMGWTFBBQ!!!11!11!!eleventy!!11. It isn't new, it isn't correct, it's just sad.

To the original poster, I say this: LEARN TO USE THE FORUM SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NONSENSE DEBUNKED OVER FOUR YEARS AGO. Please.

Jebas H. Cripes...

 

[Macgyver1968]

They didn't just get their number wrong, they deliberately chose the number of planes in total that were in the sky to make it seem like the hijacked planes ould be really hard to find

Here is a source for 4500 planes on 911:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmafp/is_200406/ai_n6841643/?tag=content;col1

I am sure there are many more.

How coincidental that PM managed to get their figure wrong but it matched the total number of planes.

So how do you..or the OP know that they weren't hard to find? Have you worked as an ATC during this time period? I haven't...so I really can'tcomment on the difficulty...but the OP makes this statement:

It is silly to suggest that ATC could be foiled by simply
turning off a transponder. A rogue airplane flying
through the country's busiest air corridors is a disaster
waiting to occur. ATC (with half a century experience)
would have procedures for identifying, tracking, and
responding to such a rogue airplane.

Even though he has no expertise in ATC, he make a broad assumption that there would be specific procedures in place to handle the kind of chaos that was going on, on 9/11....How does he know this?

It would be different if he said "According to FAA regulations xb495-2...they're were procedures in place to identify the aircraft with the transporter" but he doesn't do that....he just assumes these procedures would be there.

 

[Reactor drone]

Well, as has been said, it's easier to know where to concentrate your search when you know which aircraft have been hijacked but when you're trying to find out what's missing from potentially hundreds of aircraft in your region it gets harder.

Was it possible to overlay primary and secondary radar data on the one display? Did they know how many planes had been hijacked? Did they know they were going to be used as missiles? Did they know where the targets were going to be?

Hindsight is wonderful for streamlining searches

 

[Thunder]

looks pretty simple huh?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

They knew exactly which planes had switched the transponders off and they knew exactly where they were when they were switched off. Air traffic controllers are not amateurs.

No, they did not. They had a bunch of airplanes that they thought were hijacks that weren't, they still thought AA11 was still flying around after it had hit WTC1. You are wrong. The situation went from "Yawn, another Tuesday morning" to "OMGWTFBBQ" in a rapid fashion. It had never happened before and they simply weren't prepared for it.

 

[JimBenArm]

looks pretty simple huh?

It's the one on the left. No, the one up and next to it. You know, the yellow one...

 

[Thunder]

It's the one on the left. No, the one up and next to it. You know, the yellow one...

you know, I have to now agree with the truthers. it should have been very easy to isolate the hiajacked planes (how many???) out of that simple mess of planes.

i mean, how many could there have been? aren't they trained for this kinda stuff?????

and if not...then WHY not? who made the decision NOT to train them? was he Jewish? what are his connections to the PNAC document????

 

[beachnut]

Please Denounce the Whoppers:

Please Publicly Denounce the Whoppers!

You posted a disjointed pile of junk. You are debunked and denounced; please try to make sense next time and clearly state your position and what needs to be denounced.

If you need help, 19 terrorists took 4 planes and crashed them into large, very large buildings; they failed and were only 75 percent effective, about 75 points past your score of zero.

 

[triforcharity]

I smell a drive by twoofering!!

 

[Edx]

Oy.

I'll just touch on the first idiotic claim in that letter.

NEWS FLASH: I am not an ATC, but I do know that the RADAR coverage and the screen which shows the transponders of the various aircraft CANNOT be overlaid. In other words, if the plane's transponder is off and the ATC is looking at the transponder tracking, the plane with the transponder off WILL NOT SHOW ON THE SCREEN. Got it? IT WON'T BE VISIBLE NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU LOOK.

Switching to RADAR coverage immediately removes ALL the identifying information of the flights in question and merely shows the tracks, making it virtually impossible to pick the one flight you need to be tracking out, especially if it's in a high-traffic area. And from what I recall of seeing the RADAR coverage an ATC would be able to see, pretty much the entire friggin' USA is a high-traffice area.

That answer your question Vinnie? This guy gets something COMPLETELY wrong straight out of the chute, and then goes on to repeat tired, debunked nonsense that was covered between 2004-2006 and presents it like it's new evidence of an INSIDEJOBZOMGWTFBBQ!!!11!11!!eleventy!!11. It isn't new, it isn't correct, it's just sad.

To the original poster, I say this: LEARN TO USE THE FORUM SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NONSENSE DEBUNKED OVER FOUR YEARS AGO. Please.

Jebas H. Cripes...

Good answer, of course going by past experience vinniem will either try and argue this into obscurity or just move on without admitting his error.

He obviously spent mere minutes looking at the 911myths page so he clearly is just arguing from complete ignorance and jumped at the chance to claim some massive error without thinking and as if he knew what he was talking about. If you don't understand something the polite thing to do is at least ASK nicely.

I wonder though since he acts like he is so concerned with being factually correct why he doesn't criticise the truth movement for their false claims. I actually went and did that when I was nearing the end of having truther beliefs on the Loose Change forums, I should have asked for accountability on more points than I did though.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Wow the OP has really opennd my eyes. I mean at 7.5 miles a minutes, Flight 77 had only travelled 97.5 miles between ATC losing it and them assuming it had crashed. It took around another 10 minutes to re-evaluate that decision, so by then it was only 172.5 miles from the point they lost it, travelling back into the densest part of US air traffic. With only 1,702.5 square miles of sky to search, finding it should have been a doddle.

 

[progge]

ATC would limit its search to a region attainable in the time elapsed --- a far smaller region with only ten or twenty aircraft.

Sounds correct to me for all planes except AA 77.

A second idiocy is inherent in Popular Mechanics's claim: the notion that ATC can't distinguish an aircraft without a transponder signal among aircraft with transponder signals. If several airplanes are within the search region, and all but one transmit transponder signals, that remaining aircraft is the wayward aircraft.

This “idiocy” claim seems to be based on the false assumption that primary signals and secondary signals were displayed together on the radar screen of FAA controllers on 9/11. Therefore misleading.

The evidence for the alleged projection consists solely of an April 8, 2004 interview with Tim Grovac (misspelled "Tim Grovack").

OK, here’s my two cents on this. Herndon Tapes indicate that a new flight plan for UA 93 was entered into the system at 9:58. This was done by Linda Justice and is confirmed at least by John Werth, both at ZOB. Also staff members from the 9/11 Commission looked at the TSD Tapes to check.
Flight paths continue to move on the TSD for a while even after the plane they are associated with stopped to move (e.g. landed or crashed). The TSD path for UA 93 ended at Reagan National at 10:28, according to the Commission’s staff member Miles Kara. Furthermore, Lynn Spencer claims she visited controllers at Washington National Airport who told here they were calling out the position of United 93, based on the projected track on their TSD to the White House, the FBI at the Pentagon and DC Guard F-16 pilot Billy Hutchison.
Such a projected path from the UA 93 crash scene to D.C. fits with the path Mineta described in an interview to the Acadmey of Achievement as the path of a plane unaccounted for and going to D.C. There is no other such path known of a plane unaccounted for on 9/11. Therefore we have no better hypothesis than the hypothesis that Mineta was referring to the projected path for UA 93. The plane Mineta spoke about was the plane the Secret Service referred to. Therefore, we have no better hypothesis than the hypothesis that the Secret Service was referring to the projected path of UA 93, too.
To conclude, until there is a better hypothesis what plane the Secret Service could have referred to, the projected flight path for UA 93 is the best available one.

 

[TruthersLie]

Please Denounce the Whoppers:

Please Publicly Denounce the Whoppers!

I will if you produce any beyond datamined quotes taken out of context. Will you denounce ALL of the lies of the truth movement?