Please Denounce the Whoppers (big lies)

[JohnM307]

Please Denounce the Whoppers:
An Open Letter to James Randi and the Skeptic Community
by John H. Morrison
(johnm 307 AT wind stream DOT net)

January 21, 2010

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When
the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders,
which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to
search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing
some of the country's busiest air corridors.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=3

At the time of the hijackings, there were 4,500
planes in the skies over the continental United
States. Without transponder data or radio
contact, controllers were forced to search for the
missing aircraft among all the identical radar
blips, with each controller responsible for
varying numbers of planes in his or her sector.

Dunbar, David & Brad Reagan, eds., Debunking 9/11 Myths:
Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts, New
York: Hearst Books, 2006, p. 17.

--- Popular Mechanics

The FAA may have been tracking the progress of
United 93 on a display that showed its projected
path to Washington, not its actual radar return.
Thus, the Secret Service was relying on
projections and was not aware the plane was
already down in Pennsylvania.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf, p. 41.

--- The 9/11 Commission Report

With the first two quotes above, Popular Mechanics tells
us flat-out that ATC must search thousands of radar blips,
across the entire country, for a commercial aircraft that
has lost its transponder signal. Popular Mechanics has
thereby followed the the admonition, "If you tell a lie,
make it a whopper." (The third quote is discussed in the
second part of this letter.)

This admonition reflects the notion that one best gets
away with lying by boldly telling a humongous, transparent
falsehood. It may be difficult mentally to reject such an
enormous falsehood. Nevertheless, the sheer enormity of
the September 11, 2001 attacks and their consequences of
the past decade demand that the skeptic community, the
science community, and every person of integrity denounce
the major falsehoods.

It takes a commercial airplane literally hours to cross
the continental US. An aircraft flying halfway from New
York to California in five minutes is in orbit:

1500 miles/(1/12 hour) = 18,000 mph = orbital speed

An airplane flying 600 mph can travel at most ten miles
each minute it's gone from ATC's view. At 450 mph, the
airplane can travel only 7.5 miles each minute. ATC would
limit its search to a region attainable in the time
elapsed --- a far smaller region with only ten or twenty
aircraft.

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

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

Note Popular Mechanics's propaganda technique: they
attempt to preempt the obvious argument (made in the
previous paragraph) by refering to aircraft "crisscrossing
some of the country's busiest air corridors." But this
quote is given as a reason for ATC's inability to track a
wayward aircraft, rather than as a reason to rapidly
locate and track the wayward aircraft.

In fact, controllers claimed to have tracked American
Airlines Flight 11 all the way to its crash into the North
Tower without the benefit of the transponder.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0913/p1s2-usju.html
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130125&page=1

The Popular Mechanics quotes are in the sections of the
article and the book titled, "No Stand-Down Order." Those
sections pretend to to explain why NORAD never set fighter
jets to intercept or even approach any of the hijacked
aircraft. Popular Mechanics is treated and cited as a
major authority in defense of the official story. With
claims like these, Popular Mechanics's discussion of 9/11
requires careful skeptical scrutiny, if not outright
rejection as blatant propaganda.

The Second Whopper

The third quote opening this article, from the first
chapter of the 9/11 Commission Report, attempts to explain
how the FAA could report to the Secret Service the
approach of an airplane 80 miles away (then 60 miles away
at least two minutes later), when in fact the airplane had
crashed 150 miles away.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf, p. 41.

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

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/notes.pdf, p. 464, Note 217.

Handwritten notes of the interview have been released:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13484935/T...tten-Notes-039

I have not found anything in the handwritten notes about
aircraft trajectory projections. The Commission did not
cite any actual FAA records or controller testimony about
an actual projection of Flight 93's path.

The projection would have continued at least nine minutes
after the crash in the Commission's account. The
Commission's use of the phrase "may have" reflects only
the minimal evidence (zero verifiable evidence) in support
of such a monstrous claim, and the Commission's
disinclination to investigate the claim.

These are but two examples of lies, propaganda, and
incompetence in the official story, or told by allegedly
credible authorities in defense of the official story. I
have sent you (James Randi) many examples in private
correspondence. The truth of 9/11 cannot stand lies,
incompetence, and propaganda.

Please Publicly Denounce the Whoppers!

[DGM]

JohM:
Where have you been hiding? This is 2010.

A forum search will show all you need to know about your "whoppers".

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by JohnM307

The truth of 9/11 cannot stand lies, incompetence, and propaganda.

well, if that is the case....then BUDDY...you are on the wrrrrooooooongggggg side.

[sadhatter]

An Open Letter To Truthers

What if you are right?

If the world is being manipulated by an organization that makes hitler's pals look like schoolboys, then why on earth are you wasting time with youtube videos and internet debate?

If the world is on the edge of a cliff with an NWO flunkie behind it with a pointy stick, then the last thing you should be doing is wasting your time here with us.

Do what any other ( real, successful ) revolution has done, something.

Get armed, get organized and actually fight the power.

Did civil rights get given to blacks because of some angry letters?

Did Nazi's stop because of some bad press?

No it took blood sweat and tears, something i have yet to see the truthers have to shed.

If you want to get your message across, if you want to seem like more than 20 somethings with too much time on their hands, storm a death camp, capture an evil leader, do what every revolutionary group has done before and actually sacrifice something.

If the threat is real, the truth movement is either incompetent or lazy. Nothing has been done short of chest thumping and self promotion. And this seems very suspect if the world is being manipulated so.

In truth though, i believe that you fear the reaction, you fear storming a death camp and finding nothing , you fear taking a prisoner and finding out he is just an average guy, you fear bursting your bubble of self delusion when the reality of the world sets in.

In short, if we are right you are wasting your time, if you are right, doing what your doing now is wasting your time. And moreso a cowardly and self focused set of actions

[dudalb]

An open letter to the OP:

Can you truthers do something other then just recycle the exact same garbage that been discredited for years now?
At least come up with some original crapola for a change.......

[vinniem]

Originally Posted by JohnM307

Please Denounce the Whoppers:
An Open Letter to James Randi and the Skeptic Community
by John H. Morrison
(johnm 307 AT wind stream DOT net)

January 21, 2010

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When
the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders,
which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to
search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing
some of the country's busiest air corridors.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=3

At the time of the hijackings, there were 4,500
planes in the skies over the continental United
States. Without transponder data or radio
contact, controllers were forced to search for the
missing aircraft among all the identical radar
blips, with each controller responsible for
varying numbers of planes in his or her sector.

Dunbar, David & Brad Reagan, eds., Debunking 9/11 Myths:
Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts, New
York: Hearst Books, 2006, p. 17.

--- Popular Mechanics

The FAA may have been tracking the progress of
United 93 on a display that showed its projected
path to Washington, not its actual radar return.
Thus, the Secret Service was relying on
projections and was not aware the plane was
already down in Pennsylvania.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf, p. 41.

--- The 9/11 Commission Report

With the first two quotes above, Popular Mechanics tells
us flat-out that ATC must search thousands of radar blips,
across the entire country, for a commercial aircraft that
has lost its transponder signal. Popular Mechanics has
thereby followed the the admonition, "If you tell a lie,
make it a whopper." (The third quote is discussed in the
second part of this letter.)

This admonition reflects the notion that one best gets
away with lying by boldly telling a humongous, transparent
falsehood. It may be difficult mentally to reject such an
enormous falsehood. Nevertheless, the sheer enormity of
the September 11, 2001 attacks and their consequences of
the past decade demand that the skeptic community, the
science community, and every person of integrity denounce
the major falsehoods.

It takes a commercial airplane literally hours to cross
the continental US. An aircraft flying halfway from New
York to California in five minutes is in orbit:

1500 miles/(1/12 hour) = 18,000 mph = orbital speed

An airplane flying 600 mph can travel at most ten miles
each minute it's gone from ATC's view. At 450 mph, the
airplane can travel only 7.5 miles each minute. ATC would
limit its search to a region attainable in the time
elapsed --- a far smaller region with only ten or twenty
aircraft.

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

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

Note Popular Mechanics's propaganda technique: they
attempt to preempt the obvious argument (made in the
previous paragraph) by refering to aircraft "crisscrossing
some of the country's busiest air corridors." But this
quote is given as a reason for ATC's inability to track a
wayward aircraft, rather than as a reason to rapidly
locate and track the wayward aircraft.

In fact, controllers claimed to have tracked American
Airlines Flight 11 all the way to its crash into the North
Tower without the benefit of the transponder.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0913/p1s2-usju.html
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130125&page=1

The Popular Mechanics quotes are in the sections of the
article and the book titled, "No Stand-Down Order." Those
sections pretend to to explain why NORAD never set fighter
jets to intercept or even approach any of the hijacked
aircraft. Popular Mechanics is treated and cited as a
major authority in defense of the official story. With
claims like these, Popular Mechanics's discussion of 9/11
requires careful skeptical scrutiny, if not outright
rejection as blatant propaganda.

The Second Whopper

The third quote opening this article, from the first
chapter of the 9/11 Commission Report, attempts to explain
how the FAA could report to the Secret Service the
approach of an airplane 80 miles away (then 60 miles away
at least two minutes later), when in fact the airplane had
crashed 150 miles away.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf, p. 41.

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

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/notes.pdf, p. 464, Note 217.

Handwritten notes of the interview have been released:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13484935/T...tten-Notes-039

I have not found anything in the handwritten notes about
aircraft trajectory projections. The Commission did not
cite any actual FAA records or controller testimony about
an actual projection of Flight 93's path.

The projection would have continued at least nine minutes
after the crash in the Commission's account. The
Commission's use of the phrase "may have" reflects only
the minimal evidence (zero verifiable evidence) in support
of such a monstrous claim, and the Commission's
disinclination to investigate the claim.

These are but two examples of lies, propaganda, and
incompetence in the official story, or told by allegedly
credible authorities in defense of the official story. I
have sent you (James Randi) many examples in private
correspondence. The truth of 9/11 cannot stand lies,
incompetence, and propaganda.

Please Publicly Denounce the Whoppers!

Fantastic post, well done.

Don't expect any of the pseudoskeptics here to actually address your points but I will certainly settle down with some popcorn and watch them dance.

You really should post more often.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by vinniem

Don't expect any of the pseudoskeptics here to actually address your points but I will certainly settle down with some popcorn and watch them dance.

you MUST.....be joking.

"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof."

now THAT......is the definition of a pseudo-skeptic. it describes 9-11 Truthers....to a T!!!!

Edited by Locknar:

Off-topic portion of post removed.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by vinniem

Fantastic post, well done.

Don't expect any of the pseudoskeptics here to actually address your points but I will certainly settle down with some popcorn and watch them dance.

You really should post more often.

I realise how the reaction the OP has gotten would look to people new to these claims, but its so OLD people are bored of it.

A better thing to do is to rebut the articles on 911myths for example, I'm sure you'd get a proper response to that rather than making claims as if no ones heard them before and as if no ones ever given a response.

[vinniem]

Originally Posted by Edx

I realise how the reaction the OP has gotten would look to people new to these claims, but its so OLD people are bored of it.

A better thing to do is to rebut the articles on 911myths for example, I'm sure you'd get a proper response rather than making claims as if no ones heard them before and as if no ones ever given a response.

What does the OP get wrong?

[Locknar]

Ok folks...please stay on topic and address the OP....whoppers being big lies vs the Burger King Whopper (now in Humor and found here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...24#post5554324

Posted By:Locknar

[Edx]

Originally Posted by vinniem

What does the OP get wrong?

Read what I said to do. What does 911myths get wrong?

btw why didnt you explain why you told me I was blaming the Jews on the other thread? No accountability with you vinniem, absolutely none. As I said before people like you are the main reason why I realised the Truth Movement was full of crap.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by vinniem

What does the OP get wrong?

um.....everything.

[NYCEMT86]

You know what would be awesome, if there was a function on this site that could be used to find the answers to the questions you have. I mean where could I ever find such a feature?



ETA:

my grammar sucks.

[vinniem]

Originally Posted by parky76

um.....everything.

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

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

[vinniem]

Originally Posted by Edx

Read what I said to do. What does 911myths get wrong?

btw why didnt you explain why you told me I was blaming the Jews on the other thread? No accountability with you vinniem, absolutely none. As I said before people like you are the main reason why I realised the Truth Movement was full of crap.

I assume you mean this page?

http://www.911myths.com/html/primary_radar.html


Hmm. Not really much to work with there.

Quote:

In the absence of a transponder signal, controllers must pick out an unidentified blip on the screen from all the other aircraft they're dealing with, not such an easy task.

This is blatantly false. A plane without a transponder signal would clearly be identified amongst many more that have.

[Macgyver1968]

Originally Posted by vinniem

What does the OP get wrong?

Well..I'll just pick one. He states

Quote:

With the first two quotes above, Popular Mechanics tells
us flat-out that ATC must search thousands of radar blips,
across the entire country, for a commercial aircraft that
has lost its transponder signal. Popular Mechanics has
thereby followed the the admonition, "If you tell a lie,
make it a whopper." (The third quote is discussed in the
second part of this letter.)

He is suggesting that the ATC were searching the entire lower 48 for the planes...and goes on to give some calculations. Only problem...he's mis-quoting the article. The article actually says:

Quote:

ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors.

It never says "the whole country"..it say's "one of the country's busiest air corridors"...there's a big difference, and he is misrepresenting what the article actually says... so his whole premise is flawed.

[vinniem]

Originally Posted by Macgyver1968

Well..I'll just pick one. He states



He is suggesting that the ATC were searching the entire lower 48 for the planes...and goes on to give some calculations. Only problem...he's mis-quoting the article. The article actually says:



It never says "the whole country"..it say's "one of the country's busiest air corridors"...there's a big difference, and he is misrepresenting what the article actually says... so his whole premise is flawed.

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

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

[Sam.I.Am]

You are assuming that the display showing the transponder information can also have the RADAR data overlaid on the same screen instead of on two different screens. I'm not an ATC so I don't know if they even had that capability back then or if it was widely implemented if it was available.

I can see it causing problems with all of the smaller private aircraft with no transponders out there.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by vinniem

I assume you mean this page?

http://www.911myths.com/html/primary_radar.html

Hmm. Not really much to work with there.


This is blatantly false. A plane without a transponder signal would clearly be identified amongst many more that have.

Great, now watch people educate you.

Not that it will do any good as I've seen you wont admit when you're wrong, or when you post insane questions to me implying I believe the Jews did 911.

btw, I already argued NORAD stuff a lot in my first thread I ever made on this forum, maybe you didn't read it all. Eventually I just couldn't defend what I was saying anymore and that clearly everything truthers had ever said about it was based on lies and ignorance intentionally trying to dumb everything down to misrepresent it.

[Sam.I.Am]

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

[Macgyver1968]

Originally Posted by vinniem

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

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

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

[Thunder]

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

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

oh well..what can ya do.

[vinniem]

Originally Posted by Macgyver1968

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

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

Here is a source for 4500 planes on 911:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1

I am sure there are many more.

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

[vinniem]

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

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

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

[Scott Sommers]

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

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

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

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

[rwguinn]

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

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by vinniem

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

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

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

[Sabrina]

Oy.

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

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

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

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

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

Jebas H. Cripes...

[Macgyver1968]

Originally Posted by vinniem

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

Here is a source for 4500 planes on 911:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1

I am sure there are many more.

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

[Reactor drone]

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

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

Hindsight is wonderful for streamlining searches

[Thunder]

looks pretty simple huh?

[Sam.I.Am]

Originally Posted by vinniem

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

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

[JimBenArm]

Originally Posted by parky76

looks pretty simple huh?

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

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by JimBenArm

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

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

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

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

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by JohnM307

Please Denounce the Whoppers:

Please Publicly Denounce the Whoppers!

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

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

[triforcharity]

I smell a drive by twoofering!!

[Edx]

Originally Posted by Sabrina

Oy.

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

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

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

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

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

Jebas H. Cripes...

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

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

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

[PhantomWolf]

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

[progge]

Originally Posted by JohnM307

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

Sounds correct to me for all planes except AA 77.

Originally Posted by JohnM307

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

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

Originally Posted by JohnM307

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

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

[TruthersLie]

Originally Posted by JohnM307

Please Denounce the Whoppers:

Please Publicly Denounce the Whoppers!

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