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 29th November 2011, 11:30 AM   #201
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Quoting for ... well, Truth. Anyone wasting their time engaging the sad remnants of the Truth movement here has to accept that progress towards a goal is not their objective. It's been ten years, and RedIbis can't conceive of a plausible hypothesis. There is a reason for that.
Oh, I can conceive a plausible hypothesis but I'm not interested in chumming the waters with speculation. Speculation is irresponsible discourse. There's nearly nothing to be learned about what we think "really happened." There's only those reports that we either wholeheartedly accept purely based on faith or approach with a reasonable level of skepticism due to the strength of their evidence.
__________________
(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, 11:40 AM   #202
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Would you just answer the question so we can move on?

What would have changed if they put the code in?


Quote:
Speculation is irresponsible discourse.
Too funny.

That's ALL you truthers have is speculation! All your theories start with (asinine) speculation and move quickly downhill from there!
NoahFence 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, 11:44 AM   #203
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
There's nearly nothing to be learned about what we think "really happened."
Incorrect.

There is something you and your kind can learn.

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

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

See - you hit this wall of absurdity. What you think happened is impossible.
NoahFence 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, 01:43 PM   #204
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
RedIbis - your lack of response on that last post of mine is exactly what I'm talking about.

Congrats for making my point.
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, 02:48 PM   #205
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
So pilots sometimes set the code when they want ATC attention immediately. Wouldn't the pilots want that?
You keep forgetting that the FIRST thing, and the most IMPORTANT thing, is keying up the radio and saying the word "MAYDAY". Anyone that hears that, stops EVERYTHING and pays attention to ONLY that person. No matter where they are.

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

Why is this so hard for you to understand???
triforcharity 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, 02:54 PM   #206
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
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.
You posted the book answer from AIM. Did you fail to read it? Pilots in contact with ATC don't need to squawk the hijacking code.

Posting AIM debunked your claim.

Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
So pilots sometimes set the code when they want ATC attention immediately. Wouldn't the pilots want that?
When ATC is busy, instead of stepping on other aircraft transmissions, you can set the code for emergency, or hijacking to get immediate attention so your actions do not create a hazard to other traffic! Then ATC tries to talk to you, and they will ask you to stop the code, and assign you a code, or your old code.

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

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


Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Or, pilots wouldn't need to set the code if they were able to stop the attack? How in the hell would they be able to determine that? Especially since you claim this was a new kind of hijacking, whatever the hell that is.
Being attacked in the cockpit is not a hijack code, it is a MAYDAY, an emergency, you would not set the code, you would fight your attackers. We are not trained to fight while facing forward strapped in with a seat belt and shoulder harnesses! The attackers have the best position, more room.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
I know you like to fashion yourself some kind of expert, but if you fly planes like you write and use logic, ...
You don't understand pilot procedures, you can't decode my poor writing skills, you can't understand 911. I was giving you my thoughts on the issue, if you can't comprehend them, it is indicative of your inability to understand 911, and the fact not setting the hijack code only means the hijack code was not set, nothing more because the pilots had radio contract. They never said much because they were attacked and killed.



You posted AIM which debunks your claim on this issue.

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

Last edited by beachnut; 29th November 2011 at 03:00 PM.
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 29th November 2011, 02:58 PM   #207
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
I hate flying. I have no desire to learn anything about it.

Yet everything that Beachnut posts makes perfect sense to me. How's that work, Red?
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, 04:21 PM   #208
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,287
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Oh, I can conceive a plausible hypothesis but I'm not interested in chumming the waters with speculation. Speculation is irresponsible discourse. There's nearly nothing to be learned about what we think "really happened." There's only those reports that we either wholeheartedly accept purely based on faith or approach with a reasonable level of skepticism due to the strength of their evidence.
And I say you lie. I say you cannot conceive a plausible hypothesis. I say you are utterly at a loss when trying to conceive a plausible hypothesis. You couldn't conceive a plausible hypothesis if your life depended on it.

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


There
is
no
plausible
hypothesis.
Period
.
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, 04:31 PM   #209
djlunacee
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 654
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.
What part of the PROCEDURE do you not understand? Setting the code is down the list, according to what you posted, there are other options to be exhausted before sending the transponder code. Either you are truly hard headed or being deliberatly obtuse on this point, which is it? And no skepticism is not what you're practicing, it is denialism.

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

This is a classic reason why conspiracy theorists are laughed at, and mocked.
Playing dumb doesn't make you a skeptic, it proves your ignorance. The sheer stupidity to think that a pilot struggling to survive an attack would have the means or ability to punch a 4 digit code into a transponder, while being strapped into a seat, having his throat cut and being stabbed by multiple attackers is assinine at best.
djlunacee 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, 04:37 PM   #210
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,812
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
And I say you lie. I say you cannot conceive a plausible hypothesis. I say you are utterly at a loss when trying to conceive a plausible hypothesis. You couldn't conceive a plausible hypothesis if your life depended on it.

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


There
is
no
plausible
hypothesis.
Period
.
There was a similar pattern to my even-earlier thread, but a few other posters did post theories, including the 9/11Investigator's execrable Mossad theory.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...37#post4947137

And, as noted, RedIbis has been doing this no-claim thing for a while, so there's no point engaging.
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, 05:33 PM   #211
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,287
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
There was a similar pattern to my even-earlier thread, but a few other posters did post theories, including the 9/11Investigator's execrable Mossad theory.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...37#post4947137

And, as noted, RedIbis has been doing this no-claim thing for a while, so there's no point engaging.
Thanks for the link. Two posts further down, Stellafane expresses it beautifully:

Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
Hi RedIbis. I give you some points for at least posting in this thread, something other Truthers have thus far avoided.

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

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

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

ETA: Interestingly, RedIbis replied to Stellafane with this:
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
I appreciate your thorough and civil response. For the sake of this discussion, and really nothing else, I would suggest that LIHOP is a theory which competes with the official story, and deserves equal investigative treatment.
Now if RedIbis thought back then that LIHOP is the best competing theory, then he is now facing a problem when he opines that pilots not squawking 7500 is suspicious: LIHOP is a theory where real airliners with real pilots were taken over by real, murderous terrorists and really crashed deliberately. AFAICS, there is no difference between the pilots's behaviour under either the "OCT" or a LIHOP theory.

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

Last edited by Oystein; 29th November 2011 at 05:46 PM.
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, 06:37 PM   #212
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Oh, I can conceive a plausible hypothesis but I'm not interested in chumming the waters with speculation. Speculation is irresponsible discourse. There's nearly nothing to be learned about what we think "really happened." There's only those reports that we either wholeheartedly accept purely based on faith or approach with a reasonable level of skepticism due to the strength of their evidence.
A popular truther false dichotomy fallacy.
__________________
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 29th November 2011, 06:40 PM   #213
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
I'd be happy to move on.
There's this button on your computer with a circle and a line. Press it.
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, 06:46 PM   #214
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by GStan View Post
"Mr. Terrorist, please stop stabbing me for just a second. I've got a procedure to follow."
More of a slash, really.
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, 06:50 PM   #215
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.
Look at how carefully and misleadingly this is worded:
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.
Even though the Flight 93 pilots radioed a MAYDAY.
Quote:
A CNN story said that pilots are trained to send the hijack code “if possible.” But entering the code takes only two or three seconds, whereas it took hijackers, according to the official story, more than 30 seconds to break into the pilots’ cabin of Flight 93.
Loaded words. This is their interpretation of what was supposedly happening.
Quote:
The fact that not one of the eight pilots performed this required action casts serious doubt on the hijacker story.
They present "evidence" that Flight 93 pilots had 30 seconds and then expand the argument to all eight pilots, 6 of which we know nothing about what kind of time or opportunity they had. Hmm...none out of eight, could trouble me. None out of two, not so much.

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

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

What a whole panel of maroons.
__________________
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 06:52 PM.
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, 07:01 PM   #216
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,699
Please feel free to respond to me any time RedIbis, I would love to hear you admit you were wrong about the Flight 93 mayday calls.

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

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

Last edited by cjnewson88; 29th November 2011 at 07:05 PM.
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, 07:23 PM   #217
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
I hate flying. I have no desire to learn anything about it.

Yet everything that Beachnut posts makes perfect sense to me. How's that work, Red?
That doesn't surprise me in the least.
__________________
(RedIbis, 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, 07:26 PM   #218
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Thanks for the link. Two posts further down, Stellafane expresses it beautifully:




ETA: Interestingly, RedIbis replied to Stellafane with this:

Now if RedIbis thought back then that LIHOP is the best competing theory,
Is that what you think it says?
__________________
(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, 07:34 PM   #219
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,699
Any time RedIbis..
__________________
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, 07:43 PM   #220
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,766
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Is that what you think it says?
I see this as a completely disingenuous response. If what Oystein says is not what you intended to mean by providing LIHOP in response to Stellafane, then explain what you really did mean.
__________________
"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, 08:54 PM   #221
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
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....
Thus showing that the people, if they are determinned and courageous, can stand on their own and do not need a big bad bully bodyguard who set rules for them to keep...er...wait a minute.
__________________
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, 09:43 PM   #222
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,350
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.
It is their words, not necessarily what the actual procedure said by that date, but if this is really the case, I want to ask:

How is that evidence supposed to be gathered? Is a cabin intrusion automatically a hijacking? How is that assessed?

I seem to remember that before 9/11, most hijackings of airplanes were done without the hijackers actually taking control of the plane. Wouldn't it be reasonable for the pilots to not automatically expect a cabin intrusion to be a hijacking until having time to assess the situation?
__________________
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, 09:51 PM   #223
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,812
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
Any time RedIbis..
You're figuring it out now. Resist the temptation to respond. It's the only effective response. As demonstrated by your post
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 30th November 2011, 02:16 AM   #224
MikeW
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
I seem to remember that before 9/11, most hijackings of airplanes were done without the hijackers actually taking control of the plane. Wouldn't it be reasonable for the pilots to not automatically expect a cabin intrusion to be a hijacking until having time to assess the situation?
Quite.

The assumption here appears to be that in the event of a cabin intrusion any pilot would squawk the hijack code immediately, to the point where seconds count.

But that assumption is not supported by any documentary evidence. Which makes the claim about as substantial as "missile batteries at the Pentagon", where essentially people say "well they must have had them, mustn't they".

And this unsupported assumption doesn't even make sense, as you point out. A violent cockpit intrusion need not necessarily mean a hijacking. Why would they raise a false alarm until they understood what was happening? There's no reason why they would have imagined they were going to be killed, so they could always let ATC know later, either via the transponder or verbally. And at the point where they realised the danger they were in, I'd hazard a guess their priorities were defending themselves from the murderers in front of them, rather than dropping their defences and turning away, even for a moment.
MikeW 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 30th November 2011, 02:17 AM   #225
Brattus
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,290
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
On a sad note, one of the members of the group, Lyn Margulis has passed away. I'm not that familiar with her work, but from what I've read, she seemed like a courageous and intelligent woman.
You know what they say. The only good truther is a.....well you know.

Seemed like it to whom? Other truthers? That's like being recognized for having great dog crap eating skills in a room full of dog crap eaters.
Brattus 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 30th November 2011, 03:02 AM   #226
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,287
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Is that what you think it says?
No. It actually really says "I am utterly unable to make up even one-tenth of a plausible hypothesis, but I'll try this little half-baked and insincere distraction of mentioning LIHOP so it isn't too embarrassingly obvious that I have absolutely nothing at all besides empty, hollow crying."
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 30th November 2011, 04:28 AM   #227
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
So now I'm confused. Red, do you advocate LIHOP or MIHOP? It's unclear because you I've seen you argue for everything from "pull it" to planted plane parts at Shanksville to no plane at the Pentagon. You do know that if it WAS LIHOP, everything would have happened pretty much how the "official story" says, right?
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead 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 30th November 2011, 05:47 AM   #228
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
No. It actually really says "I am utterly unable to make up even one-tenth of a plausible hypothesis, but I'll try this little half-baked and insincere distraction of mentioning LIHOP so it isn't too embarrassingly obvious that I have absolutely nothing at all besides empty, hollow crying."
Your snark aside, do you see the difference between what you wrote and what I actually wrote?
__________________
(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 30th November 2011, 06:06 AM   #229
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,287
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Your snark aside, do you see the difference between what you wrote and what I actually wrote?
I already told you what you really wrote: That you are utterly unable to make up even one-tenth of a plausible hypothesis, but will try this little half-baked and insincere distraction of mentioning LIHOP so it isn't too embarrassingly obvious that you have absolutely nothing at all besides empty, hollow crying. You say this with every post that avoids making a claim about what really happened.
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 30th November 2011, 06:11 AM   #230
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I already told you what you really wrote: That you are utterly unable to make up even one-tenth of a plausible hypothesis, but will try this little half-baked and insincere distraction of mentioning LIHOP so it isn't too embarrassingly obvious that you have absolutely nothing at all besides empty, hollow crying. You say this with every post that avoids making a claim about what really happened.
Now who sounds like they're crying like a baby?
__________________
(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 30th November 2011, 06:29 AM   #231
GStan
Graduate Poster
 
GStan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,349
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Now who sounds like they're crying like a baby?
Uh, still you. Next question.
__________________
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 30th November 2011, 06:54 AM   #232
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,287
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Now who sounds like they're crying like a baby?
The baby that knows he's been caught with trousers down. The baby is naked, everybody can see it has no clothes. In your case, that would be a plausible hypothesis. Everybody can see that you did not post a plausible alternative hypothesis. Not in this post, not ever. No one ever did. Now you are trying to point at me and cry "but you are naked, too!"

Well, buddy, I am not. I do have a plausible hypothesis, and I posted it long ago in my "Roll call" thread.

You are the one with no plausible hypothesis. Don't ever forget that. You claimed:
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Oh, I can conceive a plausible hypothesis ...
but everybody sees that you lied: You cannot. Or else you would have offered proof that you can, by actually conceiving a plausible hypothesis. You don't have one. Two years ago, you tried to distract from your nakedness, from your utter lack of a plausible hypothesis, by alluding to LIHOP:
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
For the sake of this discussion, and really nothing else, I would suggest that LIHOP is a theory which competes with the official story, and deserves equal investigative treatment.
The statement is very clear: You are saying that you have no plausible hypothesis that you would be willing and able to defend. You are saying that LIHOP is not in fact "a theory which competes with the official story, and deserves equal investigative treatment", no. You qualify this proposition with the weasle phrase "For the sake of this discussion, and really nothing else" - in other words, LIHOP is not a plausible hypothesis, and you have no other plausible hypothesis. You have nothing.

You are naked.

And you cry and point fingers and people who are dressed.
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 30th November 2011, 07:28 AM   #233
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
[Snipped. A lot of whining]

What I said:
Quote:
I would suggest that LIHOP is a theory which competes with the official story, and deserves equal investigative treatment.
What you said I said:
Quote:
Now if RedIbis thought back then that LIHOP is the best competing theory, then he is now facing a problem
Do you see the difference? A simple yes or no will suffice.
__________________
(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 30th November 2011, 07:35 AM   #234
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
What I said:


What you said I said:
"Now if" doesn't indicate certainty.

Since you don't indicate anything the only analysis available is a "what if" since LIHOP and MIHOP are the only two scenarios (they are highly highly general and wide scoped so the possible conclusions branch out significantly from those two)....

Right or wrong... it's likely to degenerate into a massive semantics argument... That tends to happen with such high ambiguity as you try to keep.
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 30th November 2011 at 07:39 AM.
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 30th November 2011, 07:35 AM   #235
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
That doesn't surprise me in the least.
So you admit I've got common sense and you? Not so much. Thanks!
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 30th November 2011, 07:37 AM   #236
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: 28,141
Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills View Post
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.
The whole transponder issue is a perfect example of the "everything is an anomaly" style of argument. If the pilots had entered the code, truthers would be ridiculing the suggestion that a pilot fighting for his life could nevertheless find time to operate the transponder. If some but not all entered the code, the truthers would be pointing out the inconsistency, and demanding to know what was so different about the ones that entered it. And if none entered the code, truthers would be pointing out how easy it is to enter it. There's no explanation or analysis, just a simple knee-jerk claim that, whatever actually happened, something different would be expected.

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 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 30th November 2011, 07:40 AM   #237
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,287
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
What I said:


What you said I said:


Do you see the difference? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Cut out the weaseling and the dodging the non-claiming.
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
I see this as a completely disingenuous response. If what Oystein says is not what you intended to mean by providing LIHOP in response to Stellafane, then explain what you really did mean.
Explain what you did mean!
I worded my post as "If ... then ...".
I can't know if the "If" part ist true. You can. Explain yourself! Did you think that LIHOP was the best alternatove hypothesis, or a plausible hypothesis at all? You seemed to imply that when you said that "LIHOP is a theory which competes with the official story, and deserves equal investigative treatment". If you did not think that LIHOP is a plausible hypothesis, why did you suggest it ought to be considered in the first place? Why would you not suggest a plausible hypothesis instead? What game are you playing? Why don't you just tell us which alternativ hypothesis you believe to be plausible - if you have any such plausible hypothesis at all?

Or you could admit that you lied when you said that you "can conceive a plausible hypothesis".

Or, if you "can conceive a plausible hypothesis", why don't you? Are you not interested in finding out who murdered close to 3000 people on 9/11? You say you can point the investigation towards answering that question of guilt - yet you choose to cover up for the murderers by remaining silent about the plausible hypothesis that you claim you can conceive? Are you conspiring with murderers? Are you consciously obstructing justice?

Or are you just lying?



I say you are only just lying.
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 30th November 2011, 08:29 AM   #238
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
Explain what you did mean!
.
File this with, "Larry made out like a bandit".

__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 30th November 2011 at 08:32 AM.
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 30th November 2011, 08:33 AM   #239
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Cut out the weaseling and the dodging the non-claiming.

Explain what you did mean!
I worded my post as "If ... then ...".
I can't know if the "If" part ist true. You can. Explain yourself! Did you think that LIHOP was the best alternatove hypothesis, or a plausible hypothesis at all? You seemed to imply that when you said that "LIHOP is a theory which competes with the official story, and deserves equal investigative treatment". If you did not think that LIHOP is a plausible hypothesis, why did you suggest it ought to be considered in the first place? Why would you not suggest a plausible hypothesis instead? What game are you playing? Why don't you just tell us which alternativ hypothesis you believe to be plausible - if you have any such plausible hypothesis at all?

Or you could admit that you lied when you said that you "can conceive a plausible hypothesis".

Or, if you "can conceive a plausible hypothesis", why don't you? Are you not interested in finding out who murdered close to 3000 people on 9/11? You say you can point the investigation towards answering that question of guilt - yet you choose to cover up for the murderers by remaining silent about the plausible hypothesis that you claim you can conceive? Are you conspiring with murderers? Are you consciously obstructing justice?

Or are you just lying?



I say you are only just lying.
I never said that LIHOP was the best theory, you suggested that I did. You're the liar
__________________
(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 30th November 2011, 08:47 AM   #240
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Yes you did.

You're not fooling anybody. Get a new hobby.
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
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 05:01 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.