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 28th November 2011, 09:30 AM   #161
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Believing that the official narrative is supported by "irrefutable evidence" makes you a fundamentalist not a skeptic.
Ah... but here in reality, I'm right. There IS irrefutable evidence.



There is however, none for your side of the fence. Only heresay, misinterpretation, and outright lies.

Every theory put forth by the truth movement is proven false an instant after the 1st impact at the Trade Towers.

And I never said I was a skeptic. I said being a skeptic ends when the answers are given. I was never a skeptic in regards to 9/11.
NoahFence 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 28th November 2011, 09:35 AM   #162
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,869
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Believing that the official narrative is supported by "irrefutable evidence" makes you a fundamentalist not a skeptic.
I'm a skeptic of the official truther myth.
__________________
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; 28th November 2011 at 09:40 AM.
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 28th November 2011, 10:05 AM   #163
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
I'm a skeptic of the official truther myth.
As you should be.
__________________
(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 28th November 2011, 10:51 AM   #164
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,287
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
David Ray Griffin, William Veale, Elizabeth Woodworth and 21 of the usual suspects have decided that truthers need to try to agree on a few things. http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...ileys/hehe.gif

http://www.consensus911.org/

"The purpose of the 9/11 Consensus Panel is to provide the world with a clear statement, based on expert independent opinion, of some of the best evidence opposing the official narrative about 9/11."

It took them 6 months to (mostly) agree on 13 statements. http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...ileys/hehe.gif

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

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

I am amazed how this thread got so distracted. There is one novel aspect in this "9/11 Consensus Panel" - and that something is not the claims, the supposed evidence, or the people pushing this thing. The novel aspoect is the approach:

Quote:
The Consensus Points were derived from a Delphi survey of over 20 expert panelists
Why is this thread not focussing on this aspect?

So let's do it:

1. "Delphi method"

According to consensus911.org, ...
Quote:
The Delphi Method is a standard consensus tool which uses an established methodology to advance scientific knowledge in fields such as medicine.
According to Wikipedia however - which consensus911 links to!, ...
Quote:
The Delphi method (play /ˈdɛlfaɪ/ del-fy) is a structured communication technique, originally developed as a systematic, interactive forecasting method which relies on a panel of experts.
Interestingly, Wikipedia does NOT mention "medicine" as one science where the Delphy method is employed, nor any other particular science, nor does it talk about "advance knowledge". So from the very start, consensus911 misinforms their readers about their method. This should have everybody's alarm bells ringing.

From Wikipedia we learn further:
"If panelists are misinformed about a topic, the use of Delphi may only add confidence to their ignorance"


2. "Experts"

WP:
Quote:
panel of experts, who are selected for a reason, usually that they hold knowledge on an opinion or view.
Let's see what the areas of expertise are of our panelists:

0: Aeronautical engineering
0: Physics and math education
0: Journalism
0: Aeronautical engineering
0: Geography and environmental science education
3: Aircraft accident investigator
1: Chemistry
0: Physics
2: Military and civilian Pilot
1: Military Pilot
0: Buddhism
0: Filmmaking
0: Law
0: Journalism
0: Psychological Counseling
0: Physical Therapy
0: Acting
0: Public Administration
0: Public Health
0: Economics
0: Journalism

And here are the Delphi facilitators' qualifications:
0: Theology
0: Law
0: Librarian

The number preceding the qualification is the number of claims out of the 13 that the panelist or facilitator is an expert for.

There is not a single expert on the panel for Points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13
There is only one expert on the panel for Points 9, 10, 11.
Only one Point (#12) has 3 experts (the pilots) to show for.

It is obvious that the panelists were not chosen bsed on their expertise in the pertinent fields of structural engineering, fire science, forensic investigation. Instead, many of them are known for already havin the opinion that the towers were CDed, flight 93 shot down, or other truther nonsense. They do not represent the full breadth of expert knowledge in the required fields.

Likewise, the 3 facilitators lack all expertise to facilitate the process.


Summary:

- The Delphi method is misapplied by consensus911 for deciding on state of knowledge instead of making a forecast
- The panel does not consist of experts
- Panelists were chosen not based on their knowledge but based on their opinons.
- The outcome of applying the Delphi method is therefore expected to be highly unreliable to the point of being worthless.
- consensus911 lies about what the Delphi method is
- consensus911 lies about the expertise of their panelists.


The "13 points of consensus" represent the consensus of a highly biased and non-random fringe of non-experts. Nothing more, nothing less. They have no reliable connection to actual knowledge of reality.


\thread
Oystein 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 28th November 2011, 12:20 PM   #165
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,829
What fascinates me is that of all the things truthers have claimed over the past 10 years, these are the ones which the panel can agree on and consider the "best evidence".

Never in 10 years have I heard any mention of pilots not entering transponder codes (although I'm sure it's out there somewhere).

I've heard plenty against the "hijacker theory" about how phone calls can't be made from planes, hijackers are still alive, hijackers were bad pilots and could not have flown planes, hijackers names were not on list of passengers, you can't hijack planes with boxcutters, yada, yada. If the best thing they can now agree on is that pilots didn't enter codes => no hijacking, that doesn't bode well for their cause .
__________________
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 28th November 2011, 12:37 PM   #166
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,287
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
...
Never in 10 years have I heard any mention of pilots not entering transponder codes (although I'm sure it's out there somewhere).
...
I am not even sure what this is supposed to be evidence for. If all four planes were not hijacked - what else could have happened? Why does the "expert panel" not make predictions on that?
Oystein 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 28th November 2011, 01:10 PM   #167
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Believing that the official narrative is supported by "irrefutable evidence" makes you a fundamentalist not a skeptic.
You debunked your claim, and refuse to correct yourself; not very skeptical. To ignore the evidence like 911 truth does, is called what? Ignorance. In this case 911 truth paranoid conspiracy theorists are making up best evidence based on their ignorance and biases. All their claims lack evidence and are not logical. You picked one of the dumbest claims and debunked it without knowing. Have you figured it out yet? No, you now mount a weak attack with this post since your claim went down in flames.

You posted evidence of pilot procedures which makes your claim on setting codes false, illogical, made up out of ignorance. Now you are reduced to weak attacks on others when you should be saying thank you for trying to explain pilot procedures. You are welcome.

The fact is pilots would tell ATC on the radio about hijacking. On 911 the pilots were attacked, the pilots never got a chance to figure out it was a new kind of hijacking. You act as if you are no terrorists did 911 kind of 911 truth Follower, and you fail to make a rational claim. We (sometimes) set the special transponder code when we can't get ATC attention, or we want ATC attention NOW. We would not need to set the hijack code on 911 if we were able to stop the cockpit attack, we would report on freq the event! You and 911 truth have failed, and you don't seem to have a clue you have failed after 10 years. 10 years is enough time to earn a PhD in something, and all 911 truth followers now have doctorates in failure; you all graduated super-nano-nonsense! Congratulation! yeah

Thank you for posting AIM, it clearly makes your claim illogical. good job
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 28th November 2011, 06:55 PM   #168
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,699
I'm still waiting for a reply for RedIbis regarding the recording of flight 93's mayday calls which both clearly show signs of struggle.
__________________
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 28th November 2011, 10:36 PM   #169
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,140
Hang on a moment. Griffin is saying that radio messages show that hijackers took 30 seconds to break into the cockpits and take over the planes, and that the fact that this would have been enough time to squawk 7500 on the transponder proves that... hijackers didn't really break into the cockpits and take over the planes?

That's as bad as using flight 77's FDR out of the Pentagon crash scene to prove that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. It's not even flawed, it's just plain moronic.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   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 28th November 2011, 10:57 PM   #170
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,699
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Hang on a moment. Griffin is saying that radio messages show that hijackers took 30 seconds to break into the cockpits and take over the planes, and that the fact that this would have been enough time to squawk 7500 on the transponder proves that... hijackers didn't really break into the cockpits and take over the planes?

That's as bad as using flight 77's FDR out of the Pentagon crash scene to prove that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. It's not even flawed, it's just plain moronic.

Dave
You're forgetting Dave dis-info agents work in mysterious ways..
__________________
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 29th November 2011, 12:43 AM   #171
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
You're forgetting Dave dis-info agents work in mysterious ways..
It's simply a new slant on trolling.

They publish old and dealt with many times claims (not the alleged "evidence") which can lead to round in circles discussion. Sure pure trolling as per several regular members here. The aim is ensure that no outcomes are reached, no decisions taken and doing so by any level of dishonesty required.

The reality is that all these published 13 claims go to matters already resolved to the satisfaction of reasoning honest people. In fact to the satisfaction of the "reasonable person" of legal lore. (The "man on the Clapham omnibus" for those familiar with the British legal tradition.)

So the initiative is not intended to progress any search for truth (veracity - the dictionary meaning before the truth movement bastardised the word.)

Rather it is simply another scheme to ensure no progress of discussion.

Trolling...

...and there will be many who choose to feed the trolls
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 29th November 2011, 06:58 AM   #172
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
We (sometimes) set the special transponder code when we can't get ATC attention, or we want ATC attention NOW. We would not need to set the hijack code on 911 if we were able to stop the cockpit attack, we would report on freq the event!
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.
__________________
(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 29th November 2011, 07:22 AM   #173
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post

... pilots point of view (base on flying from 1973, as a private pilot, USAF student pilot, copilot, aircraft commander, instructor pilot, flight commander, standardization/evaluation pilot, chief instructor pilot, etc.).
We put the code in at our discretion, not when you and the idiots of 911 truth think we should. The aircraft commander, the captain, he guy in charge decides when the code is set! Not you and a bunch of nuts on 911 who use CNN as a source, the same source which calls them a bunch of crackpots. We would not rush to enter the code, it might get too much attention during a real hijacking. We might wait for 10 minutes. This point by the nuts on 911 proves they are mentally ill, or dumber than dirt; take your pick. As a pilot you use your judgement on when to tell ATC and the world of your problem. We must warn ATC if we depart from our clearance, but that also is self-critiquing, as seen on 911 when the pilots had zero chance to warn anyone, YET ATC diverted traffic and kept all traffic away from 4 planes off clearance, off course. This issue exposes these fools in 911 truth as failed nuts. The only thing they can do is mislead those who lack knowledge, those who share the same insane delusions.

And is it not likely that the terrorists knew how the codes would be set and took care that they were not? They would have known that the more uncertainty and delay there was, the better chance they would have of reaching their targets before being intercepted.
sheeplesnshills 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 29th November 2011, 07:38 AM   #174
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
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.
Bottom line this for me RedIbis -

Was there a hijacking or not? If not, why then were the pilots in on it?
If so, why would it matter if they put the code in or not? What would it change?
NoahFence 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 29th November 2011, 08:01 AM   #175
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Bottom line this for me RedIbis -

Was there a hijacking or not? If not, why then were the pilots in on it?
If so, why would it matter if they put the code in or not? What would it change?
As I've said from the get-go, the fact that not one of the eight pilots squawked the code raises a certain level of skepticism. And again, I don't find this point particularly strong.
__________________
(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 29th November 2011, 08:04 AM   #176
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
As I've said from the get-go, the fact that not one of the eight pilots squawked the code raises a certain level of skepticism. And again, I don't find this point particularly strong.
If they were hijacked, and put in the code, what would it have changed?
NoahFence 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 29th November 2011, 08:07 AM   #177
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
As I've said from the get-go, the fact that not one of the eight pilots squawked the code raises a certain level of skepticism. And again, I don't find this point particularly strong.
Which is why you've been harping on it for days, of course.
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 29th November 2011, 08:09 AM   #178
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,350
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
If they were hijacked, and put in the code, what would it have changed?
I know the answer to that question: the truthers would have claimed that it is very strange that the pilots could squawk that code in a situation where the cabin was being invaded, being a situation of distress as per the AIM manual, and that they should have used the MAYDAY procedure instead, and that that's a reason to cast doubts about the official version.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno 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 29th November 2011, 08:10 AM   #179
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,653
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Was there a hijacking or not? If not, why then were the pilots in on it? If so, why would it matter if they put the code in or not? What would it change?
For those who haven't been here a long time, this is how Red works...

He won't answer your question directly. He will use his pretended inability to understand what Beachnut and I have said about this as a diversion from the point of the thread and the point that the reason the hijack code was not set is that the pilots did not have time to set it. This has been established, but he won't acknowledge that and will continue to defend his fellow twoofers.

Later, he'll say he answered the question, but won't provide a link to his answer. The same tactic has been used over and over again and again for years...
__________________
[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 29th November 2011, 08:12 AM   #180
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
the reason the hijack code was not set is that the pilots did not have time to set it.
Total crap. And you have no way of knowing this. Please stop pretending.
__________________
(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 29th November 2011, 08:13 AM   #181
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
I know the answer to that question: the truthers would have claimed that it is very strange that the pilots could squawk that code in a situation where the cabin was being invaded, being a situation of distress as per the AIM manual, and that they should have used the MAYDAY procedure instead, and that that's a reason to cast doubts about the official version.
Casting doubt doesn't change anything though. What happened, happened.

REDIBIS -
What would have changed had they put in the code?
NoahFence 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 29th November 2011, 08:13 AM   #182
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
Which is why you've been harping on it for days, of course.
I'd be happy to move on.
__________________
(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 29th November 2011, 08:17 AM   #183
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,350
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Casting doubt doesn't change anything though. What happened, happened.
I know, you know, most people in this forum know. Now try to explain that to the Consensus 9/11 non-expert panelists. Or to RedIbis, for the matter.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno 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 29th November 2011, 08:17 AM   #184
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,792
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Total crap. And you have no way of knowing this. Please stop pretending.
Yeah... 30 seconds is perfectly enough time for anyone to assess any situation sufficiently... uh-huh
__________________
Grizzly Bear 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 29th November 2011, 08:18 AM   #185
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
Yeah... 30 seconds is perfectly enough time for anyone to assess any situation sufficiently... uh-huh
You've convinced me. Clearly, that's not enough time to enter a four digit code.
__________________
(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 29th November 2011, 08:21 AM   #186
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,792
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
You've convinced me. Clearly, that's not enough time to enter a four digit code.
Time needed to assess the situation + time needed to input the emergency code once the judgment call is made. What takes longer?
__________________
Grizzly Bear 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 29th November 2011, 08:22 AM   #187
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
You've convinced me. Clearly, that's not enough time to enter a four digit code.
Why does it matter?

Please tell me so we can all move on - what aspect of 9/11 would have changed had the pilots put in the code?
NoahFence 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 29th November 2011, 08:25 AM   #188
GStan
Graduate Poster
 
GStan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,349
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
You've convinced me. Clearly, that's not enough time to enter a four digit code.
"Mr. Terrorist, please stop stabbing me for just a second. I've got a procedure to follow."
__________________
On why one would debate truthers at JREF..."Kind of like holidaying with a cult, without the inconvenience of having to give away the deed to your house." - Confuseling
GStan 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 29th November 2011, 08:31 AM   #189
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
You've convinced me. Clearly, that's not enough time to enter a four digit code.
Bull flops. It is more than enough time to enter the code. Where your line of reason ing goes into the toilet is on the issue of a starting time for the procedure.

It is bloody unlikely that the pilots had any idea what was happening when they heard the first wierd noise. Maybe they lost ten seconds right there.

By that time, the hijackers were probably in the cockpit. Okay, they have twenty seconds to enter the code.

Problem is that, in an OH **** scenario, people tend to forget the contrived responce and just do what they think is going to save their lives immediately. This is more likely going to appear to involve fighting off the intruders than playing with the electronics in the cockpit.

Twoofers need to get some real-life experience.
__________________
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 29th November 2011, 08:37 AM   #190
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,287
Has Griffin, or RedIbis, concluded anything from their observation that the pilots did not enter 7500 even though they might have had 30 seconds to do it? How does that change the overall story of 9/11?

Does it mean the planes were not taken over by terrorist pilots? If that is their conclusion, then what - did someone fly the planes into buildings or not? There is a big fat tail to that story that someone needs to tell.

Would RedIbis be so kind and tell us what he thinks happened most likely on 9/11, if terrorists did not take out the airline pilots and fly planes into buildings and a field in Penn.?
Oystein 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 29th November 2011, 08:40 AM   #191
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
^^
I'm trying that too. Maybe if we both ask him to answer the same question, he'll mistakenly do so. Worth a shot I suppose.
NoahFence 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 29th November 2011, 08:59 AM   #192
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Would RedIbis be so kind and tell us what he thinks happened most likely on 9/11, if terrorists did not take out the airline pilots and fly planes into buildings and a field in Penn.?
Even though it's been brought to your attention multiple times, you still pull out the old 'what really happened' gambit?
__________________
(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 29th November 2011, 09:03 AM   #193
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,287
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Even though it's been brought to your attention multiple times, you still pull out the old 'what really happened' gambit?
Sorry. I forgot that truthers are not interested in "what really happened". Truth is greater than reality, right? Reality is for whimps.
Oystein 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 29th November 2011, 09:17 AM   #194
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,350
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Does it mean the planes were not taken over by terrorist pilots? If that is their conclusion, then what - did someone fly the planes into buildings or not? There is a big fat tail to that story that someone needs to tell.
I think that their line of reasoning goes like this: «This proves that the official story is false, therefore we demand a new investigation».
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno 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 29th November 2011, 09:30 AM   #195
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
^^
I'm trying that too. Maybe if we both ask him to answer the same question, he'll mistakenly do so. Worth a shot I suppose.
Quote:
Even though it's been brought to your attention multiple times, you still pull out the old 'what really happened' gambit?
I guess not....
NoahFence 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 29th November 2011, 09:43 AM   #196
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,652
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Sorry. I forgot that truthers are not interested in "what really happened". Truth is greater than reality, right? Reality is for whimps.
Forget it. The "big picture" is not a concept the "truth" wants to except.

(It kills their game)
__________________
"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 29th November 2011, 09:46 AM   #197
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,829
I thought we "knew" that flight 93 was diverted safely to Cleveland while some bombs were set off in a crater and some debris thrown around for looks? The passengers were killed in Cleveland and buried at sea.



ETA: I notice the consensus panel has returned to the "shot down" claim, which apparently involves TPTB randomly choosing an innocent plane and shooting it from the sky so they could have a good story about passengers saving the day....
__________________
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

Last edited by sylvan8798; 29th November 2011 at 09:49 AM.
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 29th November 2011, 10:00 AM   #198
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,765
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
I thought we "knew" that flight 93 was diverted safely to Cleveland while some bombs were set off in a crater and some debris thrown around for looks? The passengers were killed in Cleveland and buried at sea.
That would be buried at Lake Erie. An even grislier fate.
__________________
"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 29th November 2011, 10:56 AM   #199
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,812
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
It's simply a new slant on trolling.

They publish old and dealt with many times claims (not the alleged "evidence") which can lead to round in circles discussion. Sure pure trolling as per several regular members here. The aim is ensure that no outcomes are reached, no decisions taken and doing so by any level of dishonesty required.

The reality is that all these published 13 claims go to matters already resolved to the satisfaction of reasoning honest people. In fact to the satisfaction of the "reasonable person" of legal lore. (The "man on the Clapham omnibus" for those familiar with the British legal tradition.)

So the initiative is not intended to progress any search for truth (veracity - the dictionary meaning before the truth movement bastardised the word.)

Rather it is simply another scheme to ensure no progress of discussion.

Trolling...

...and there will be many who choose to feed the trolls
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.
carlitos 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 29th November 2011, 11:11 AM   #200
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
If they were hijacked, and put in the code, what would it have changed?
Red Ibis would have claimed it was grounds for skepticism.
sheeplesnshills 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 03:32 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.