ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Consensus 9/11 , david ray griffin , Neils Harritt , steven jones

Reply
Old 25th November 2011, 06:41 PM   #81
Oz1976
Muse
 
Oz1976's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 720
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
It's lose/lose. If they had jumped to set the code in the first thirty seconds, the CT loons would call it "too soon, as if it were pre-planned! The plane wasn't even hijacked at the time. Etc..."
This. There is no debating anymore. There is no acceptance of evidence or dialogue of any kind. Those who are still entrenched in Trutherism's will be till the day they die. Perhaps a few can escape the grip of the cult, but I doubt it. I'm taking Mackey's advice to an extent. I will no longer debate with Truthers, though I will still ridicule some of them. RedIbis deserve's no one's attention. None of you should go round and round with this cultist, ignore him/her. He/she has not answered one single question posed in this thread. Obfuscated and flat out ignored some, and simply replies with what can only be described as trolling retorts.

No matter what Consensus 9/11 hopes to achieve, they will fail, as all truther nonsense has failed. The Toronto Hearings failed. The CIT failed. The Truth Movement has failed. It's a non-issue. They can't even get any support from the Occupy Movement. It's really sad.
Oz1976 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 07:18 AM   #82
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by The Platypus View Post
What is the official story?

It's not hard to understand that it is nothing but cult mantra, that you all recite like programmed drones, used to paint a deceptive picture of what happened...
Sometimes antecedents and pronouns work out just perfectly.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 08:05 AM   #83
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Except that the Truthers claim that

a)the collapses were entirely unprecedented, so they were rigged
b)they look just like demolitions, so they were rigged
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 08:59 AM   #84
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,765
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Sometimes antecedents and pronouns work out just perfectly.
RedIbis, I understand it is easy to fire back at funny grammar mistakes, and a quick win for you. Why not try rebutting what Beachnut is saying. Do you accept that he is correct in his last statement, or do you have something that proves him wrong? He is demolishing a piece of the "best evidence" that the "official" version of 9/11 is not factual. Do you accept that?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 09:35 AM   #85
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
You seem to be quibbling a semantic point. The panel is skeptical because there is a 30 duration from the time the CVR records the pilot screaming "Mayday" and "Get out of here."

From that piece of evidence, the panel is skeptical of the larger point that not one of the eight pilots squawked this code.
Why do you think "they" didn't make that part of the "official narrative"? Surely someone writing the script knew that pilots are trained to enter a code to alert the FAA if there is a hijacking?
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

- Professional Wastrel
sylvan8798 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 09:47 AM   #86
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
Why do you think "they" didn't make that part of the "official narrative"? Surely someone writing the script knew that pilots are trained to enter a code to alert the FAA if there is a hijacking?
If 9/11 was an inside job, you can't possibly expect the orchestrators to get everything right, nor could such a plan have been pulled off flawlessly. 9/11 is merely the result of a plan, not necessarily exactly what was planned.

Again, the fact that none of the eight pilots squawked the hijack code is reason to be skeptical of the official narrative of events.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 10:08 AM   #87
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
If 9/11 was an inside job, you can't possibly expect the orchestrators to get everything right, nor could such a plan have been pulled off flawlessly. 9/11 is merely the result of a plan, not necessarily exactly what was planned.
Except that what Truthers argue is that the planners somehow pulled off their conspiracy with such a degree of competence that they managed to fool the vast majority of the world's experts on the relevant subject matter, but aren't able to fool random unlettered people on the Internet looking at blurry videos who are largely unable to admit they're wrong on anything, such as a land-developer "making out like a bandit" from 9/11. If you can't admit you're when you're objectively wrong on minor matters, then one cannot be considered impartial.

Quote:
Again, the fact that none of the eight pilots squawked the hijack code is reason to be skeptical of the official narrative of events.
You're Texas Sharpshooting. Any squawk code would've been a sequence of buttons, not some big red button to push. Unless you're trained for people bursting into the cockpit with intent to kill all of you in a few seconds, your root level programming in such a situation is almost always going to be

10 survive
20 goto 10


It's not unusual at all.

I note you didn't answer LSSBB's post, as you will ignore mine because it bought up a mistake you made and are trying desperately to forget.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 10:18 AM   #88
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post

Again, the fact that none of the eight pilots squawked the hijack code is reason to be skeptical of the official narrative of events.
??? It is an ambiguous fact; you don't know why the code was not used. It may have been due to surprise or confusion.

It has no effect on the fact that:

1) The planes were hijacked
2) Eyewitnesses described events from the planes
3) The hijackers were identified both on flight manifests and on security cameras

Surely none of you truthers are suggesting that the pilots and their immediate colleagues deliberately sacrificed themselves in order to carry out some strange plot?? Healthy skepticism should be based on an ability to reason, not an inability to reason.....
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 10:27 AM   #89
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Red's approach is a perfect illustration of the way disbelief is used to malform one's thinking. Why the 30-second gap? It was inferred from the CVR, but the CVR was released by the 'authorities' so why believe that it is authentic? Applying truthy disbelief, NO FACTS are reliable anyway, so you can never know anything... except that it must've been an inside job since there are discrepancies and conflicts with the facts (which are not reliable anyway).

Look anywhere in the truther narrative(s) and you'll see such absurdity:
The hole in the Pentagon was small, therefore no plane crashed there - inside job
There were no bodies seen at Shanksville - inside job
The towers fell very quickly - inside job
No plane hit WTC 7 - inside job

etc... I refer to this cognitive malfunction as 'CD of the Gaps' when it applies to the compulsion to assign 'Controlled Demolition' as the reason for every anomaly or confusing aspect of the collapses; but 'Conspiracy of the Gaps' would apply to everything else related to 9/11, I suppose. Pilot's didn't react in the manner a conspiracist thinks they should've? That's an anomaly, however slight and ambiguous - so it means 'Inside Job'.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

Last edited by alienentity; 26th November 2011 at 10:31 AM.
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 10:33 AM   #90
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Surely none of you truthers are suggesting that the pilots and their immediate colleagues deliberately sacrificed themselves in order to carry out some strange plot??
This is exactly what the maroons are doing!
Dog Town is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 10:43 AM   #91
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Red's approach is a perfect illustration of the way disbelief is used to malform one's thinking. Why the 30-second gap? It was inferred from the CVR, but the CVR was released by the 'authorities' so why believe that it is authentic? Applying truthy disbelief, NO FACTS are reliable anyway, so you can never know anything... except that it must've been an inside job since there are discrepancies and conflicts with the facts (which are not reliable anyway).
Correction: no facts are reliable except the ones they believe support their argument. It's like when Moan Hoaxers want NASA to prove they went to the moon, but don't actually know what they'd accept as proof, because it doesn't exist. In fact, just asking them or Truthers is often enough to make them start twisting like a worm on a hook, or babbling some nonsense about "lack of anomalies". There's very little positive evidence, only things they think should be there that aren't, therefore aliens.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 10:50 AM   #92
Tezro
Student
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 40
Another shining example of "Best Evidence":

From Point #5: "Only the top sections of these buildings were damaged by the impacts and the resulting fires, whereas their steel structures, much heavier towards the base, were like pyramids in terms of strength. So the official account, which ruled out explosives, cannot explain why these buildings completely collapsed."

Here is the source provided for the claim: "Like pyramids: Architect Mario Salvadori explains: “The load on the columns increases with the number of floors of the building, and their weight must vary in the same proportion.” (Dr. Mario Salvadori, “Why Buildings Stand Up” [New York: W.W. Norton, 1980], p. 117). The lower the floors, the stronger the steel structures. So even if the impacts and fires had caused the top sections of these buildings to collapse, the collapses would have been arrested by the lower floors. "

Again, completely misrepresenting the information contained in their own sources. I happen to have a copy of "Why Buildings Stand Up" in front of me, and Mr. Salvadori is not discussing the World Trade Center in the quote provided. If one were to read the quote in context, they would never draw the conclusion that Mr. Salvadori believes that "Tall steel framed buildings are like pyramids in terms of strength." It makes me particularly annoyed to see Mario Salvadori's words being twisted in such a way, he died prior to 9/11 and certainly would have had something to say about the merit of the controlled demolition hypothesis. If they want to say "The Twin Towers were like pyramids in terms of their strength", they ought to link to a credible source which actually says this. The way they have constructed their "footnotes" is so sloppy and misleading, I find it hard to believe that they aren't aware of the liberties they are taking with the truth. They end up making a separate, unsourced claim within the "footnote", that "the collapses would have been arrested by the lower floors", conveniently ignoring that this claim has been specifically and authoritatively dismissed already. (I can't post links yet, but it's in the discussion of Bazant's paper that specifically addressed James Gourley.)

Most of the technical claims made by the truthers are outside of my area of expertise, so I try and leave it to others to address these. I'm just a carpenter; but I do have a pretty decent layman's understanding of the principles of structural engineering, partly from reading both "Why buildings stand up" and "Why buildings fall down".

I was also a History student as an undergrad, and if I ever produced research as crappily "sourced" as this stuff, I surely would have flunked out early. There is every indication that they have no concern for presenting factual information, only a concern for presenting information which is, on its face, "compelling".
Tezro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 10:56 AM   #93
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
I note you didn't answer LSSBB's post, as you will ignore mine because it bought up a mistake you made and are trying desperately to forget.
I did. Realized that it was nothing but a pot shot and deleted it.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 10:58 AM   #94
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,652
Did I miss where Red answered my question?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 11:38 AM   #95
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,765
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
I did. Realized that it was nothing but a pot shot and deleted it.
You did not. I asked you to specifically refute what Beachnut is saying about the 30 seconds. Look to his post at 3:10 yesterday.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 11:53 AM   #96
TexasJack
Penultimate Amazing
 
TexasJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,906
Originally Posted by Tezro View Post
Most of the technical claims made by the truthers are outside of my area of expertise, so I try and leave it to others to address these. I'm just a carpenter; but I do have a pretty decent layman's understanding of the principles of structural engineering, partly from reading both "Why buildings stand up" and "Why buildings fall down".
For being "just a carpenter", you have excellent research skills. You're correct, their use of sources is a joke. That comes as no surprise as quote mining is a chronic habit of truthers.

The first thing I do with any content is check the sources. If the sources are not legitimate, or if legitimate, and they fail to support their argument, I disregard them. On technical issues, I consult experts. Fortunately my old college roommate and best friend (I drive him crazy with my questions) is a structural engineer. I feel he is one I can trust.
For the historical aspects of 9/11, I have read the best sourced books in this arena. Ghost Wars, Perfect Soldiers, Spying Blind, The Looming Tower are included. The research is second to none. Personal interviews with hundreds of those with inside knowledge, plus scouring the archives in multiple countries are examples of this type of research. Some of these authors have deservedly won Pulitzer Prizes for their research. DRG does horrible research on 9/11. I'm not sure if he's a ideologue or a scam artist trying to sell books. This latest consensus crap is no exception.

Welcome to the forums, I've found your posts so far to be very informative.

Last edited by TexasJack; 26th November 2011 at 12:46 PM.
TexasJack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 12:25 PM   #97
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,869
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
If 9/11 was an inside job, you can't possibly expect the orchestrators to get everything right, nor could such a plan have been pulled off flawlessly. 9/11 is merely the result of a plan, not necessarily exactly what was planned.

Again, the fact that none of the eight pilots squawked the hijack code is reason to be skeptical of the official narrative of events.
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
Except that what Truthers argue is that the planners somehow pulled off their conspiracy with such a degree of competence that they managed to fool the vast majority of the world's experts on the relevant subject matter, but aren't able to fool random unlettered people on the Internet looking at blurry videos who are largely unable to admit they're wrong on anything, such as a land-developer "making out like a bandit" from 9/11.
......t.
Except Truthers claim that 9/11 was an inside job, the orchestrators got everything right, and that such a plan was pulled off flawlessly, and went off exactly as planned - to fool and anger Americans to retaliate and attack their enemies. American blowback.
A plan of astounding coordinated flawless complexity, 10,000 conspirators all paid to murder, no one said no, no one has squealed.
All the imperfections were perfectly planned to appear unplanned. Had the pilots time to enter the hijack code, truthers would have found this suspicious.
If the orchestrators cannot expect to get everything right, they cannot expect to keep all of thousands conspirators silent.

"To a truther, having double standards simply means they're better than the average person, because they have twice as many standards."
"To a truther, having double standards simply means they're better than the average person, because they have twice as many standards."
"To a truther, having double standards simply means they're better than the average person, because they have twice as many standards."
.................................................. ...............

Truthers blind to the obvious
Truthers blind to the obvious
Truthers blind to the obvious
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum

Last edited by BasqueArch; 26th November 2011 at 02:02 PM.
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 01:35 PM   #98
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,829
Quote:
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.
They use the word trained in such a way as to suggest that the pilots are trained similar to the way dogs are trained, by lots of repetition, or soldiers (also by lots of repetition). Do pilots really practice this procedure many times with mock-hijacking events on mock-up airplanes?
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

- Professional Wastrel
sylvan8798 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 02:02 PM   #99
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,652
I still think we're tailing away from the thrust of the OP.

IS THIS THE BEST EVIDENCE? (or a slow work in progress).
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 02:44 PM   #100
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
...
Again, the fact that none of the eight pilots squawked the hijack code is reason to be skeptical of the official narrative of events.
No, it is not anything.

You can't set the code when you are dead, or displaced from the cockpit. The planes were not hijacked, they were taken and used as Kinetic Energy Weapons.

We set the code covertly, to covertly tell ATC. We also have ways of telling ATC we are being hijacked, and we can ask for intervention. Setting the transponder is one way to quietly tell ATC of our problem.

... the fact that none of the eight pilots squawked the hijack code is they were dead or displaced. Only a few nuts in 911 truth think it is a reason to be skeptical of the official narrative.

We set the code when we want. On 911 the pilots were removed before they could do anything. The Flight 93 pilots alerted ATC with a MAYDAY call before they were killed or displaced from the cockpit, never to be heard from again. They must of been dead, they were never heard from after the cockpits were attacked.

Repeat... Pilots would set the hijack code when they find time after they know it is a hijacking. On 911 it was not a hijacking, it was murder. The code for murder is MAYDAY on the radio if you are not dead, or busy being killed. And you could squawk 7700 for emergency to get traffic priority. Setting the code "was" a covert way to alert ATC.

This claim
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
...
Again, the fact that none of the eight pilots squawked the hijack code is reason to be skeptical of the official narrative of events.
Your claim, is proof you have no usable knowledge of pilot procedures and expose your inability to be logical. The is no logical step from pilots not setting a 4 digit code, and the official story of 911.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 03:07 PM   #101
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I still think we're tailing away from the thrust of the OP.

IS THIS THE BEST EVIDENCE? (or a slow work in progress).
They misuse the English language.

The 13 points are claims not evidence. They even sub heading them as "claims".

Typical truther foggy logic.

They could be the 13 points which the group found most agreement as to their inclusion in "Consensus 911: The Agreed List of Claims".

They also happen to be a list of some of the most comprehensively rebutted claims about 9/11.

Pure desperation on their part and, as I said previously, a sign that the 9/11 controversies have run out of energy.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 03:14 PM   #102
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,652
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
They misuse the English language.

The 13 points are claims not evidence. They even sub heading them as "claims".

Typical truther foggy logic.

They could be the 13 points which the group found most agreement as to their inclusion in "Consensus 911: The Agreed List of Claims".

They also happen to be a list of some of the most comprehensively rebutted claims about 9/11.

Pure desperation on their part and, as I said previously, a sign that the 9/11 controversies have run out of energy.
All true.

The missed point is "best". When one publishes a list claimed as "best" it usually is "best". Not a work is progress.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 03:24 PM   #103
Oz1976
Muse
 
Oz1976's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 720
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
I did. Realized that it was nothing but a pot shot and deleted it.
See? This is proof no one should engage this troll in any further discussion. He/She is nothing more than a liar from a den of liars. The inability to admit one's failings relegates you to evolutionary stagnancy. Redibis will never evolve. RedIbis will never grow up. RedIbis will be stuck as a twoofer troll till the day he/she dies. Ignore these idiots. It's over.
Oz1976 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 05:00 PM   #104
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
...
Again, the fact that none of the eight pilots squawked the hijack code is reason to be skeptical of the official narrative of events.
Only using no logic, and in the world of delusions 911 truth pushes.

Not a traditional hijacking, pilots were displace/killed is the only conclusion supported by this "fact" which has you confused.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 05:13 PM   #105
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Again, the fact that none of the eight pilots squawked the hijack code is reason to be skeptical of the official narrative of events.
UH HUH. You are defending people that believe that no one thinks anyone heard explosions on 911, when that is the complete opposite. Lots of people heard explosions, its just that this is fully expected in building fires and in a hundred other situations. You are defending people that believe that there were no hiajckers because the CNN victim lists didn't list their murderers as victims and which said they didnt include them anyway. Thats two examples, but my fingers cant possibly type all the absurd fails of the truth movement here for you.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 06:01 PM   #106
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,653
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Again, the fact that none of the eight pilots squawked the hijack code is reason to be skeptical of the official narrative of events.
Another illustration of just how ignorant of reality you really are. The fact is this CONFIRMS the "official narrative" in that the crews obviously did not have time to set a code in the transponder.

Emergency responses by pilots can be divided into two main categories:

Critical Action or Immediate Action - this includes such items as activating fire suppression and shutting down and engine when there are indications of an engine fire. Or action performed in the event of rapid loss of pressurization.

Non-Critical Action - this includes everything that is not critical. Setting the hijack code would be in this category. It would be set when there is time to do it in a covert manner so the intruders would not know ATC was notified of the problem.

Anyone who is sensible would know that the cockpit intrusion was very rapid and violent giving the pilots no chance to respond. It's quite fortunate that the UA 93 crew were able to get a MAYDAY call out. That was more appropriate than setting the hijack code anyway. It's not as if a magic skyhook would arrive to rescue everyone in either case.

Ignorant twoofers are truly grasping a straws with this one....
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 06:21 PM   #107
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by Tezro View Post
Again, completely misrepresenting the information contained in their own sources. I happen to have a copy of "Why Buildings Stand Up" in front of me, and Mr. Salvadori is not discussing the World Trade Center in the quote provided. If one were to read the quote in context, they would never draw the conclusion that Mr. Salvadori believes that "Tall steel framed buildings are like pyramids in terms of strength." It makes me particularly annoyed to see Mario Salvadori's words being twisted in such a way, he died prior to 9/11 and certainly would have had something to say about the merit of the controlled demolition hypothesis. If they want to say "The Twin Towers were like pyramids in terms of their strength", they ought to link to a credible source which actually says this. The way they have constructed their "footnotes" is so sloppy and misleading, I find it hard to believe that they aren't aware of the liberties they are taking with the truth. They end up making a separate, unsourced claim within the "footnote", that "the collapses would have been arrested by the lower floors", conveniently ignoring that this claim has been specifically and authoritatively dismissed already.
That is the motherlode of stupid right there. The columns are stronger at the bottom, but you still have the same strength in the brackets holding the floors up. If the top floor is already overloaded to failure point, it just drops that much weigh plus its own on the next floor, and the action is repeated all the way down. The dimbulbs in the twoof movement have never demonstrated an arresting mechanism.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 06:31 PM   #108
slowsmile
Critical Thinker
 
slowsmile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Perigord Noir, France
Posts: 278
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
9/11 is merely the result of a plan, not necessarily exactly what was planned.
Yup, the hijackers never meant the plane to crash at Shanksville.
slowsmile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 11:21 PM   #109
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by slowsmile View Post
Yup, the hijackers never meant the plane to crash at Shanksville.
Not to mention the "missing" Flight 77 the Illumnati hijacked as a cover for the cruise missile they really used against the Pentagon. To destroy evidence, on computers, on the internet, with back up servers, um, er...

You know, the building Rumsfeld was in when...
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2011, 11:35 PM   #110
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,771
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
The list isn't perfect, but it's a good start.

Over ten years after 9/11 and after 6 months of work, all they came up with is a "good start"? What a hollow defense. I can sense the insincerity, as if you're defending a family member you know has failed in some way...

Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
What's so hard to understand about that?

Evidence against one thing must necessarily be evidence for something else. If they're trying to say that they do not endorse any specific alternative to the "official story", how hard is it to just state that in a clear and concise manner? These people suck at communication...

Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 26th November 2011 at 11:41 PM.
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2011, 01:48 AM   #111
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,699
Am I invisible in this thread, or does RedIbis choose to attack beachnuts incomplete information rather than looking 1 comment up from his and seeing my 'more complete' debunking regarding the 30 second hijack time.. (look on the 1st page, just above his comment...)
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2011, 02:04 AM   #112
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
Am I invisible in this thread, or does RedIbis choose to attack beachnuts incomplete information rather than looking 1 comment up from his and seeing my 'more complete' debunking regarding the 30 second hijack time.. (look on the 1st page, just above his comment...)
Don't be too concerned. Too many people seem to assume that Red and the other trolls are genuine truthers with an interest in pursuing truth. They ain't. As trolls their objective is to get other members to "bite". So the more on topic your point and the stronger the argument the less likely they will answer. The last thing they want is on-topic reasoned debate.

I am generally against feeding trolls BUT on the rare occasions I do comment I count it as success if they do not respond. The reasoning supporting that attitude should be self evident.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2011, 06:27 AM   #113
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
I did. Realized that it was nothing but a pot shot and deleted it.
Saying that someone who can't say they were wrong about a minor point of their argument indicates they can't be trusted to determine whether any part of their argument is wrong is a pot shot? Maybe, if this were isolated behavior, instead of a repeated pattern of such from the hypothetical individual.

You still aren't actually answering, just taking a "pot shot" at me. Answer my points about the squawk box, and provide evidence.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2011, 08:50 AM   #114
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
You guys can be exceedingly tedious when you pile up, say nearly nothing and expect me to respond to each and every rant.

I'm going to restate for brevity why the panel is skeptical on this point. A source reports that the CVR records the pilot calling "Mayday" and then 30 seconds later, something to the effect of "get out of here." It is then reasonable to assume that it took the hijackers 30 seconds to enter the cockpit, yet the code was not entered.

Despite what such hallowed experts as Beachnut and Reheat have suggested, it does not take 30 seconds to enter the code. Thus, the panel is skeptical that none of the eight pilots had entered the code. Now, I'm open to why a skeptic should not be skeptical that none of the eight pilots sqwaked the code, but I haven't heard anything from our rabble other than I'm a stupid twoofer, more or less. Try again, guys.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2011, 09:25 AM   #115
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,652
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Try again, guys.
They had other pressing things to do, like figure out what was actually going on and fly the plane. They also knew that it was not a magic, save our ass solution to the problems at hand. Pilots are taught to also prioritize, squawking this code is not on the top of the list.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2011, 09:27 AM   #116
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
They had other pressing things to do, like figure out what was actually going on and fly the plane. They also knew that it was not a magic, save our ass solution to the problems at hand. Pilots are taught to also prioritize, squawking this code is not on the top of the list.
This is what I mean by debunking that does nothing but offer some rather lame excuse. So far no one has presented evidence that any of the eight pilots entered the code. You'd think that would be the first thing they'd do. What do you think they had to do instead, heat up some soup in the microwave?
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2011, 09:31 AM   #117
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,652
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
This is what I mean by debunking that does nothing but offer some rather lame excuse. So far no one has presented evidence that any of the eight pilots entered the code. You'd think that would be the first thing they'd do. What do you think they had to do instead, heat up some soup in the microwave?
Maybe fly the plane and figure out what's going on? Why do you think it should be the first thing on their list? Apparently the pilots that were there didn't think so.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2011, 09:38 AM   #118
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Maybe fly the plane and figure out what's going on? Why do you think it should be the first thing on their list? Apparently the pilots that were there didn't think so.
Considering that the code can be transmitted verbally as well, makes your debunking particularly weak.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2011, 09:40 AM   #119
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,653
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
but I haven't heard anything from our rabble other than I'm a stupid twoofer, more or less.
You keep validating that thought again and again.

There is no higher level of alert than a MAYDAY call that can be transmitted to the ground from an aircraft in flight. Why did not all of the flights transmit a MAYDAY call? Anyone with a 3 digit IQ should be able to reasonably speculate the reason for that. Obviously, they didn't have time. As has been pointed out repeatedly the hijack code is not a critical action item at any time for any reason. This entire line of thought grasped at by twoofers is just another indicator of their stupidity and IS NOT a reason to be skeptical at all. It simply validated the probability that the cockpit crew were subject to a rapid violent attack, specifically designed to prevent them from raising an alert to the ground. Why you keep trying to defend this crap only you know....
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2011, 09:42 AM   #120
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,652
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Considering that the code can be transmitted verbally as well, makes your debunking particularly weak.
Explain again what I'm "debunking"? What again are you speculating this means? That the planes were not hijacked? That the original pilots were in on it? Tell us what this "best evidence" leads us to?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:36 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.