Debunkers Respond To Dennis Cimino, A Few Comments Copy & Pasted Options

[GroundPounder]

it seems to me that the lcd is that the real aa11 and ua175 were not involved and that some 'fakery' was..close?

[elreb]

When we say "Impossible speed", this does not mean the speeds are impossible for all aircraft. The speeds are impossible for a standard 767-200. The speeds reported are not impossible if the aircraft were modified. This is covered thoroughly in our presentation "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

I believe this is another good point…that being…that some folks “do not” read the entire sentence.

There is no doubt…that audio and video can be modified however I do not buy into this Hologram theory regarding the Twin Towers because “Rob” has already solved the equation. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

I also find it interesting how several members go insanely “Berserk” if you do not agree with them. One of the best examples I can think of…is the Pentagon crash video… (IMG:style_emoticons/default/angry.gif)


Example:
No "special flying object" struck the Pentagon.
Because OSS claims that: “There's no evidence whatsoever of another craft or missile striking the Pentagon”

[23investigator]

[quote name='rob balsamo' date='Mar 27 2012, 03:32 AM' post='10804300']
Wrong.

Again Jim, Impossible speed does not validate Video Fakery nor NPT.

including the many pilots who i know personally that watched the aircraft hit the WTC, from JFK and EWR with their own naked eyes.

Dear Mr Balsamo

Did your pilot colleagues, identify the aircraft they observed hit the WTC, as a Boeing 767 200 ?

Robert S

[mrmitosis]

I am doing my best to bring together all of the evidence and apply the principle known as "inference to the best explanation", which I have explained many places.

The merit - or lack of merit - of NPT is beside the point.

What I have an issue with - and I have a REAL issue with it - is the fact that Dennis' article, which makes ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION OF OR REFERENCE TO NPT has been co-opted for precisely this purpose.

This traitorous act has the potential to ruin Dennis' credibility as an avionics professional. To my estimation, it already HAS damaged his reputation. You owe him an apology.

I not only taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning but my Ph.D. is in the history and the philosophy of science.

And yet, apparently, you've never crossed paths with the principle of Occam's Razor. I recommend giving yours a proper sharpening, Jim. Otherwise, pay attention to Rob's responses. Let him do thinking for you.

[onesliceshort]

I believe this is another good point…that being…that some folks “do not” read the entire sentence.

There is no doubt…that audio and video can be modified however I do not buy into this Hologram theory regarding the Twin Towers because “Rob” has already solved the equation. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

I also find it interesting how several members go insanely “Berserk” if you do not agree with them. One of the best examples I can think of…is the Pentagon crash video… (IMG:style_emoticons/default/angry.gif)


Example:
No "special flying object" struck the Pentagon.
Because OSS claims that: “There's no evidence whatsoever of another craft or missile striking the Pentagon”

If you think those factual statements of mine were "berserk" elreb, you've lead a sheltered life mate.
If, on the other hand, somebody would actually "show me the money", I'm all ears.

[onesliceshort]

Moreover, when onsliceshort (in post #102) observes, "As for tower 1, I suggested to Jim Fetzer that we know that the alleged 757/767s weren't used on 9/11. I also suggested that the aircraft used in Manhattan may have been modified to enable penetration using the same technology used in the missile to bring down TWA800 (for example)", he is already implicitly endorsing "video fakery", since those videos have been used to promote the myth that Boeing 767s hit the North Tower and the South. Does anyone deny that?

Umm..me? Apples and oranges.

I had the decency to read through your work (and then some) Jim. Do me the same favour please and read my posts?

While you're on a roll Jim, why not do a little legwork? Put some meat on the bones?

Apart from ignoring my post on the list of people who are alleged to have allowed their names to be used to spread "faked" images and videos, how about the witnesses to an aircraft flying towards and striking tower 2?

I've ommitted possible media embellishments, unverified media witnesses, suspect connection witnesses, trstimonies which may be misconstrued or are open to interpretation.
I've instead listed mainly first responders and those who are documented and accessible.

EMT JARJEAN FELTON BATTALION 31

http://www.sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005/0...jean_felton.pdf

...I seen the second plane coming. I'm thinking isn't that plane too low? I'm like... then I noticed, I seen it turn. It turned and went right in the building. But we're behind, like this is the building, it went in, and you see the explosion in the front...

Q: On the other side than you?

A: Yeah...

FIREFIGHTER THOMAS GABY

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110140.PDF

A.   I saw it coming in, I heard it, and bang, it
hit.

Firefighter Scott Holowach

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110114.PDF

When we first pulled up, we drove just south of the pedestrian bridge, the north pedestrian bridge, which came out of the tower to the Winter Garden.  I noticed a lot of debris coming down from the building, so we had to jump back into the high rise rig and made a U turn and parked underneath the pedestrian bridge facing north.
  At that time, I started walking towards Engine 3.  Engine 3 drove south to the south pedestrian bridge to make a U turn to come back and as I'm walking towards the Engine to find out what Lieutenant Walsh wanted us to do, I heard the sound of a jet plane.  I looked up and saw it pretty close and I was like holy shit.  What's going on with the with the flight patterns.  All of a sudden, the wings turned and it dove right into the building and it was screwed up.
  At that time Chief Ganci was behind me and he thought there was another explosion in the north tower and that's when I turned around and said Chief, listen, there is a second plane that hit the other tower.  He was like no no no no, we have another explosion.  I said no, Chief, I witnessed it.  I watched the plane hit the other tower.  He is like are you sure.  I said Chief, I'm 100 hundred percent positive I watched the second plane hit the other tower.

A very detailed, accessible witness..

Bruce Kratofil

The Second Plane

http://www.bjkresearch.com/ny/tower1.jpg

http://www.bjkresearch.com/ny/escape.jpg
"This was an AP photo from the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
It is taken from above the Hudson, looking east. 
I superimposed our route in red."

We had gotten to approximately point C on the picture, walking along the water, when both Rachel and I heard a plane. Looking over the southern tip of Manhatten, we could see the United jet roaring in, just skimming the tops of the buildings. Normally, when you see a jet that close, it is taking off or landing and is moving relatively slowly. This one was at full throttle. I remember yelling something like "What's he doing there?" but it went quickly behind us and was blocked from view by the buildings along the water. We didn't see the impact, but we could hear it and feel it. Much later, when looking back I phrased it as thinking I was in the middle of Pearl Harbor, only I was being bombed by United Airlines. At the time, however, you didn't know what to think. Before the second plane, we were shaken, but we didn't know it was a jetliner that hit the North Tower. Because I thought that the first plane was a small private plane, It was a situation I could still think about. After the second plane, though, I didn't know what to think -- war, terrorism, the end of the world with planes dropping from the sky.

Firefighter James Murphy

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110323.PDF

After that I ran up to the roof on the third floor with me and Eric Bernsten.  We were watching it.  We could see it from here.  We have an unobstructed view.  The other guys came up too.  All six of us were on the roof. We were sitting around looking at it, and I remember one guy saying, "You're going to
that.  Then we saw the second one come up.  It earn your pay today, guys."  I just remember  looked like it was coming up the East River from here. I guess it was coming from the south.
I thought it banked over the East River, which is what it looked like.  I thought it made a left over the East River and went right into it going from east to west.  But as it turns out, it came from the south.  Then we saw it just go right into the building and explode.
  I remember talking to Eric.  I remembernEric saying something, "Oh, my God, there's another plane."  I was saying to him, "That plane is closer to us.  It's really not a big plane going towards the building."  Two seconds later it rammed into the building.  You don't expect it.  We just freaked.

FIREFIGHTER ROBERT NORRIS

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110396.PDF

We all got out of the rig, and we were standing there. We watched another plane come in. I felt the plane was coming underneath the pillar of smoke that was coming out of the first tower, but obviously it veered into the tower, and it took another hit.

BATTALION CHIEF BRIAN O'FLAHERTY (FDNY)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110431.PDF

Just then out of the corner of my eye, I could see this plane. I just remember the dark. It was in the shadow. It looked low. I thought, "What the heck is the guy doing?" I watched it, watched him turn and crash right into the south tower. Right away I knew it was terrorism or terrorists. I didn't know what the first one was, but I knew what the second one was.

PARAMEDIC JOEL PIERCE

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110485.PDF

I watched eventually the second plane, I saw it. It looked like it was circling around south, then came back north, striking the south side of Tower No. 2.

EMS CAPTAIN MARK STONE

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110076.PDF

We got in the truck, listening to reports coming in on Citywide and we ended up taking the Battery Park Tunnel underneath to come up on the West Street side of the incident. We came up right out of the tunnel. I was looking up to see if I could do a little more initial size up. That is when I saw the second plane hit the building. I just watched it coming in.
I see that the plane hit and I'm really thinking for the safety of the members that we got operating already ...

FIREFIGHTER JOSEPH SULLIVAN

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110286.PDF

Upon that time I heard a plane roar. I had my window down and on my side we saw a plane flying very low come right across us and with a loud, you know, the engines revved up, and I had mentioned to him, I had no idea that it was heading towards that way, and I just said like where is this guy going, you know, he was extremely low, not realizing it was another plane heading towards the World Trade, and we saw it struck the building, we saw a big mushroom of flame, of fire coming up, and it was like disbelief, and he had gotten on the radio and notified the dispatcher another plane had struck the World Trade Center.

Denise Weiss (audio interview)

http://memory.loc.gov/service/afc/afc2001015/sr/sr276a01.mp3


Seastreak Vice President Jack Bevins (New York ferry)

http://www.trtnj.com/issues/110909/we8.php

Jack Bevins, now vice president of operations for SeaStreak, was working as captain of the SeaStreak New York ferry that day and had just departed from Pier 11 at Wall Street after dropping off passengers when the first plane hit. He said he continued up the East River to the E. 35th Street terminus of his route when he saw the second plane hit. He hurriedly returned to New Jersey to finish that trip and soon after turned around to begin a marathon rescue mission, along with the three other ferries in the company's system, that lasted 24 hours.

Stanley Praimnath

02:20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcdpMt38ip8

"Suddenly I see this big gray airplane with red letters on the wing and tail filling my window," Praimnath says. "It’s coming right at me."

Mike Penzer

http://www.nabe.com/am2001/penzer.html

About 9:03 a.m., as I was still looking north toward the Trade Center, I heard the very loud sound of a jet passenger plane flying very low behind me. I spun around and saw the plane directly above the Statue of Liberty and about to fly over our heads. Then, the plane avoided a high-rise just north of us and flew into the south side of the South Tower at about the 70th floor level. The huge plane disappeared into the even larger building, and a huge ball of flame and smoke erupted.

Contact them.

[elreb]

If you think those factual statements of mine were "berserk" elreb, you've lead a sheltered life mate.
If, on the other hand, somebody would actually "show me the money", I'm all ears.

Please go to my profile...I have one..

Go to "Google" and search "REBrammer"...I have 5 pages...

Who are you? "Mate"

Show me the money!

[onesliceshort]

Please go to my profile...I have one..

Go to "Google" and search "REBrammer"...I have 5 pages...

Who are you? "Mate"

Show me the money!

Touchy?

What the hell has my identity got to do with the conversation? I know that I'm not the one pushing speculation without a shred of proof (missile at the Pentagon). Or like some here, add my "2cents" and leave it to others to do the legwork. Just like my last post or two which have been ignored because they contain pesky details.

Rob knows who I am. As do others that I trust.

[Tamborine man]

I don't understand a word of what is going on here!

This is a truth forum. Full stop.

The source to Truth comes from the Light.
The source to falsehood comes from Darkness.

If we're into truth, that require us to show that we understand the meaning of this term at least to its basics.

If we're into truth (or what is "good" and "just") that means that we should at least apply some of its attributes,
like f.ex. a bit of kindness, of tolerance, of understanding and of sympathy to other peoples perceptions, when
they all belong to the same side.

But this is not what is happening here. Mistrust, misunderstandings, misinterpretations and misrepresentations
seems to be the order of the day. This has to stop; unless we inevitably will see a total breakdown in
communication, and a degeneration taken place into depths where not one of us really want to go! - Far from it!

To you OSS:
No one, absolutely no one, dispute that witnesses saw planes in the sky on that day. The difference is, that the
'loyalists' thinks that the planes were commercial airplanes with hijackers on board as per the OS story, while
we, and as many of the witnesses attest to, believe that the planes, more than anything, looked like military
planes without windows.
I'm sure you agree with this, because you showed us a video clip in another thread that showed us these dear
witnesses saying excacly this!

But here is the real problem: I'll maintain that with the help of the witness statements (that the plane they saw
was 'military' in its appearance), Anyone would have to agree that some form of "fakery" must have taken place!

Now OSS, you maintain that no "fakery" has taken place: "Umm ..me? Apples and oranges."!

But now: To save my sanity; to save that i'm not going completely bonkers; to save that i'm not about to loose
the plot completely; would you be kind enough to explain to me, why this should NOT go under the umbrella of
Fakery? (You might say that this is merely under the cover of "deception", but in reality the 'two' is exactly the
same, so that won't hold much sway).

Will you do me this kind and thoughtful favour please?

To any of the professional Pilots who may read this, please explain to me, in a kind way, why i might be on the
wrong track with the following observation:

We all see, and some of us see the same things over and over and over again! that the planes approaches the
towers in absolutely level flights 7 to 8 seconds before the ostensible impact. Their flight seems level and even
on all videos, except of course on the "dive-bomber" image.
Now, how is it possible to fly level, straight and even within these last seconds, while at the same time we see
a plane in a banking position and configuration? What we see next is that both planes impact the buildings in
exactly the same way: The starboard wings is up and the port wings is down. Exactly the same for both towers.
Is this really possible in the real world??
(Hope i don't have to mention the views of 'the fireman' in the Naudet brothers clip)!

Please don't kick me in the groin because of my naivity! i've had enough of that already ...., just try to be "kind"
if that is at all possible!! .......And i truly hope that you fully understand both meanings of this word)!

Cheers


PS!
Thank you so much for your support to post #90 Jim Fetzer - much appreciated. Felt a bit alone there for a moment!

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Mar 27 2012, 08:29 AM

[GroundPounder]

I don't understand a word of what is going on here!

This is a truth forum. Full stop.

The source to Truth comes from the Light.
The source to falsehood comes from Darkness.

If we're into truth, that require us to show that we understand the meaning of this term at least to its basics.

If we're into truth (or what is "good" and "just") that means that we should at least apply some of its attributes,
like f.ex. a bit of kindness, of tolerance, of understanding and of sympathy to other peoples perceptions, when
they all belong to the same side.

amen, t-man!

[23investigator]

[quote name='23investigator' date='Mar 27 2012, 08:54 AM' post='10804304']
Dear Mr Balsamo

Did your pilot colleagues, identify the aircraft they observed hit the WTC, as a Boeing 767 200 ?

Dear Mr Balsamo

The above question in post 123, may have become buried, in the various concerns following.

In other material which has been presented on the internet, one of the air traffic controllers in one of the control towers your pilot colleagues were at, near the WTC, made a remark that he was observing an aircraft approaching and then impacting the South Tower.
It is contained in a transcript, which at the moment is not at hand.
But when the air traffic controller, was asked what he thought the aircraft was, -- the transcript did not contain an answer.
The impression given though, the air traffic controller was surprised at what he was seeing.

If the aircraft had been a Boeing 767 200, it would seem that he would have seen enough of that type of aircraft, to have identified it there and then, and given an answer.

Robert S

[onesliceshort]

To you OSS:
No one, absolutely no one, dispute that witnesses saw planes in the sky on that day. The difference is, that the 'loyalists' thinks that the planes were commercial airplanes with hijackers on board as per the OS story, while we, and as many of the witnesses attest to, believe that the planes, more than anything, looked like military planes without windows.
I'm sure you agree with this, because you showed us a video clip in another thread that showed us these dear witnesses saying excacly this!

Jim Fetzer states unequivocally that "holograms" were used TM.
Jim Fetzer claims that no planes were used.
Jim Fetzer claims that video and image fakery were used.

So basically, Jim Fetzer claims that either the plane that was allegedly Fl175, reported by witnesses, specifically the witnesses that I took a full day to cypher, saw a "hologram" or that they're all lying.

Jim Fetzer claims that all videos and images taken were of a "hologram" or that the authors of these videos/images are "plants". All of them.

But here is the real problem: I'll maintain that with the help of the witness statements (that the plane they saw was 'military' in its appearance), Anyone would have to agree that some form of "fakery" must have taken place!

Now here is where the play on words comes into effect TM.

"Fakery" as Jim Fetzer uses the word encompasses all of the positions I've outlined above. Not in terms of a "military op" or where the evidence (or blanket censorship of) points to a craft other than the OS planes being involved in the military ops.

There's a major difference and I don't understand why I have to point this out!

Now OSS, you maintain that no "fakery" has taken place: "Umm ..me? Apples and oranges."!

But now: To save my sanity; to save that i'm not going completely bonkers; to save that i'm not about to loose the plot completely; would you be kind enough to explain to me, why this should NOT go under the umbrella of Fakery? (You might say that this is merely under the cover of "deception", but in reality the 'two' is exactly the same, so that won't hold much sway).

Will you do me this kind and thoughtful favour please?

See above TM. Wordsmithery.

I think I've explained myself on what comes under the "umbrella of fakery" TM, no?

I've gone to the trouble of actually looking at the evidence of the NPT claims and posting the evidence against it here. I'd like someone, particularly Jim Fetzer to respond. I'd like Jim Fetzer to tell me whether he is going to contact those people and do a little legwork.

Peace

OSS

[jfetzer]

I don't get it, onesliceshort. Since I am not denying that many witnesses reported seeing "a plane" hit the building, why are you offering a list of witnesses who saw "a plane" hit the building AS THOUGH IT WERE A REFUTATION OF MY POSITION? My point is that what they took to be "a plane" cannot possibly have been a real Boeing 767--and not merely because of its speed at around 560 mph would have been impossible for a standard Boeing 767, but because it enters the building in violation of Newton's laws. It was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses at one end and the external support columns at the other, each of which was filled with 4-8" of concrete, representing about an acre of concrete for of those floors.

Imagine what would happen if a Boeing 767 traveling at 560 mph at 35,000' had hit just one of those floors suspended in space? The damage would have devastating. We know what happens when a commercial carrier impacts with a tiny bird weighing a few ounces. And in this case "the plane" was intersecting with eight! It's velocity should have dropped to zero, yet when we do a frame-by-frame advance, it turns out that it passes its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. That is impossible unless a 500,000-ton building poses no more resistance to the trajectory of an aircraft in flight than air. I cannot understand why any pilot would not recognize this is not a real plane.

Umm..me? Apples and oranges.

I had the decency to read through your work (and then some) Jim. Do me the same favour please and read my posts?

While you're on a roll Jim, why not do a little legwork? Put some meat on the bones?

Apart from ignoring my post on the list of people who are alleged to have allowed their names to be used to spread "faked" images and videos, how about the witnesses to an aircraft flying towards and striking tower 2?

I've ommitted possible media embellishments, unverified media witnesses, suspect connection witnesses, trstimonies which may be misconstrued or are open to interpretation.
I've instead listed mainly first responders and those who are documented and accessible.

EMT JARJEAN FELTON BATTALION 31

http://www.sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005/0...jean_felton.pdf



FIREFIGHTER THOMAS GABY

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110140.PDF



Firefighter Scott Holowach

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110114.PDF



A very detailed, accessible witness..

Bruce Kratofil




Firefighter James Murphy

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110323.PDF



FIREFIGHTER ROBERT NORRIS

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110396.PDF




BATTALION CHIEF BRIAN O'FLAHERTY (FDNY)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110431.PDF




PARAMEDIC JOEL PIERCE

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110485.PDF




EMS CAPTAIN MARK STONE

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110076.PDF




FIREFIGHTER JOSEPH SULLIVAN

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110286.PDF




Denise Weiss (audio interview)

http://memory.loc.gov/service/afc/afc2001015/sr/sr276a01.mp3


Seastreak Vice President Jack Bevins (New York ferry)

http://www.trtnj.com/issues/110909/we8.php




Stanley Praimnath

02:20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcdpMt38ip8




Mike Penzer

http://www.nabe.com/am2001/penzer.html



Contact them.

This post has been edited by jfetzer: Mar 27 2012, 09:41 AM

[rob balsamo]

My point is that what they took to be "a plane" cannot possibly have been a real Boeing 767 (and not merely because of its speed at around 560 mph would be impossible for a standard Boeing 767)

Jim, for someone who claims to have done such an extraordinary amount of research on this topic, you may want to revisit the actual data.

Furthermore, you are basing your whole theory on your belief that an airliner is comparable to an empty coke can.


Jim, an airliner is nothing like an empty coke can. And to compare a transport category airplane to such, is not only disingenuous to yourself, but intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

Imagine what would happen if a Boeing 767 traveling at 560 mph at 35,000' had hit just one of those floors suspended in space?

Now tell us what "560 mph at 35,000 feet" is equivalent speed at 700-1000 MSL.

Let me know if you need help with the math.

@Robert S

Please learn how to use the quote function. It really isn't that difficult.

To answer your question, I dont recall if they specified a type aircraft. It's been nearly 10 years since we had our crew room pow-wow's regarding the events which took place on 9/11. But they did see aircraft hitting the WTC.

[jfetzer]

It is I who owe you, Tamborine man, my expression of appreciation. Of all people, I would have thought that the members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth would have understood my points, but some appear to be in a state of denial, others don't like the phrase, "No Plane Theory" or don't even understand Newton's laws.

As I use the phrase, "video fakery" encompasses any use of videos to convey a false impression of (in this case) the events of 9/11. Does anyone who has actually read "Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'" think that "the plane" in the Naudet Brothers' video was a Boeing 767 rather than, say, an arrangement of UAVs?

They had to fake these "planes" for three reasons: (1) to guarantee a hit, (2) to get them all the way into the towers, and (3) at the time of the explosions in the subbasements to drain their sprinkler systems of water. A real plane under remote control might have guaranteed (1), but it could not have done (2) or (3).

No real plane could have overcome the massive resistance posed by the building and the eight floors that it intersected (in the South Tower) or seven (in the North). I would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground. None of that happened, which requires explanation.

Without getting the plane all the way into the building BEFORE IT EXPLODED, there would have been no pseudo-explanation ("The intense fires from the jet fuel caused the steel to weaken") for the collapse of the floors, which, of course, did not actually collapse. (See, for example, "New 9/11 Photos Released".)

The "hits" had to be coordinated in time to provide a cover story for those explosions, based upon the claim that jet fuel fell through the elevator shafts and caused them. This was fanciful at best, since the elevators were staggered every 30 floors and, apart from a few maintenance elevators, did not extend all 110 floors.

Since no real plane could have penetrated all the way into the building intact and would have exploded upon impact, they had no choice but to fake them. I believe they initially thought they could do it with remotes, but, as I have explained, no real planes could have performed the feats that this specific mission required.

I don't understand a word of what is going on here!

This is a truth forum. Full stop.

The source to Truth comes from the Light.
The source to falsehood comes from Darkness.

If we're into truth, that require us to show that we understand the meaning of this term at least to its basics.

If we're into truth (or what is "good" and "just") that means that we should at least apply some of its attributes,
like f.ex. a bit of kindness, of tolerance, of understanding and of sympathy to other peoples perceptions, when
they all belong to the same side.

But this is not what is happening here. Mistrust, misunderstandings, misinterpretations and misrepresentations
seems to be the order of the day. This has to stop; unless we inevitably will see a total breakdown in
communication, and a degeneration taken place into depths where not one of us really want to go! - Far from it!

To you OSS:
No one, absolutely no one, dispute that witnesses saw planes in the sky on that day. The difference is, that the
'loyalists' thinks that the planes were commercial airplanes with hijackers on board as per the OS story, while
we, and as many of the witnesses attest to, believe that the planes, more than anything, looked like military
planes without windows.
I'm sure you agree with this, because you showed us a video clip in another thread that showed us these dear
witnesses saying excacly this!

But here is the real problem: I'll maintain that with the help of the witness statements (that the plane they saw
was 'military' in its appearance), Anyone would have to agree that some form of "fakery" must have taken place!

Now OSS, you maintain that no "fakery" has taken place: "Umm ..me? Apples and oranges."!

But now: To save my sanity; to save that i'm not going completely bonkers; to save that i'm not about to loose
the plot completely; would you be kind enough to explain to me, why this should NOT go under the umbrella of
Fakery? (You might say that this is merely under the cover of "deception", but in reality the 'two' is exactly the
same, so that won't hold much sway).

Will you do me this kind and thoughtful favour please?

To any of the professional Pilots who may read this, please explain to me, in a kind way, why i might be on the
wrong track with the following observation:

We all see, and some of us see the same things over and over and over again! that the planes approaches the
towers in absolutely level flights 7 to 8 seconds before the ostensible impact. Their flight seems level and even
on all videos, except of course on the "dive-bomber" image.
Now, how is it possible to fly level, straight and even within these last seconds, while at the same time we see
a plane in a banking position and configuration? What we see next is that both planes impact the buildings in
exactly the same way: The starboard wings is up and the port wings is down. Exactly the same for both towers.
Is this really possible in the real world??
(Hope i don't have to mention the views of 'the fireman' in the Naudet brothers clip)!

Please don't kick me in the groin because of my naivity! i've had enough of that already ...., just try to be "kind"
if that is at all possible!! .......And i truly hope that you fully understand both meanings of this word)!

Cheers


PS!
Thank you so much for your support to post #90 Jim Fetzer - much appreciated. Felt a bit alone there for a moment!

This post has been edited by jfetzer: Mar 27 2012, 10:06 AM

[rob balsamo]

Of all people, I would have thought that the members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth would have understood my points, but some appear to be in a state of denial, others don't like the phrase, "No Plane Theory" or don't even understand Newton's laws.

Jim, your insults are not welcome.

Also, please read the white text on top of every page of this forum.

Anytime you wish to address my posts, feel free.

Finally, and for the third time, do not use our work to support your theories. The next time you will be warned, will not be on this forum.

[GroundPounder]

It's velocity should have dropped to zero, yet when we do a frame-by-frame advance, it turns out that it passes its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air.

jim, the velocity aspect has been addressed elsewhere. the folks that did a finite element analysis of a plane with similar parameters impacting the outer wall, showed that the speed would have been reduced to half the initial velocity. no small feat in my estimation.

i can't speak to the video, but for the time span in question, the change would have been imperceptible to the human eye.

i don't know enough of the particulars in the case of ua175, but my conjecture of aa11 would be that the shredded remains posed no danger to the core of the building and did indeed decelerate rapidly to zero.

oh wait, i'm sorry. the airplanes broke the core columns and the fires melted steel..yeah, yeah that's it.

[rob balsamo]

jim, the velocity aspect has been addressed elsewhere.

Jim doesnt even know the velocity based on the data.

[onesliceshort]

As I use the phrase, "video fakery" encompasses any use of videos to convey a false impression of (in this case) the events of 9/11. Does anyone who has actually read "Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'" think that "the plane" in the Naudet Brothers' video was a Boeing 767 rather than, say, an arrangement of UAVs?

As I said. Wordsmithery.

A) all video and images are of a "hologram"

Or

B) all video and images are fake. And those who authored or put their name to them are plants.

C) all verified and documented witnesses saw a "hologram" or are liars/plants.

D) because it's been proven that an alleged standard 767 flew way over its limitations, the only conclusion to be drawn is that it was a "hologram" and that there is no possible way that a modified aircraft was used.

E) because the ACARS data and those who are documented as interpretting it conflicts with the alleged aircrafts' placements at time of alleged crashes, they must be "holograms" and not the result of data/radar manipulation or planeswapping/military op.

Just tell me if I am right so far Jim.

[Tamborine man]

Jim Fetzer states unequivocally that "holograms" were used TM.
Jim Fetzer claims that no planes were used.
Jim Fetzer claims that video and image fakery were used.

Why are you using the word "claim"? - when it's simply a "conclusion" one has arrived at!!

I too have come to the "conclusion" that it must have been "Holograms" of some sort:

Re. DARPA's budget papers year 2000 to 2007.

From page 123:

".....
These programs will also explore a combination of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) based electro-optic spatial light modulators
in combination with very short pulse solid state lasers to provide powerful new capabilities for secure communication up-links
(multi-gigabits per second), aberration free 3-dimensional imaging and targeting at very long ranges (> 1000 kilometers). Lastly,
innovative design concepts and system integration of MEMS-based spatial light modulators (SLMs), that provide a quantum leap in
wavefront control, photonics and high speed electronics, will be explored for an affordable and high value communications, image
sensing and targeting system for use well into the 21st century.
....."

And so, i too believe that no real planes were used, as explained to the reasons why, in previous posts.

And yes, fakery was used, obviously.

So basically, Jim Fetzer claims that either the plane that was allegedly Fl175, reported by witnesses, specifically the witnesses that I took a full day to cypher, saw a "hologram" or that they're all lying.

No, he claims no such thing. The witnesses saw a plane, and that's all they saw. And of course they are not lying about this.
They just saw what they saw, which they reported accordingly.

Jim Fetzer claims that all videos and images taken were of a "hologram" or that the authors of these videos/images are "plants". All of them.

As i said earlier, i didn't trust Hazerkhani, or Carmen Taylor. Nor did i trust Fairbanks or the Naudet brothers. Besides these people,
all other videos of the supposed impact, that came to light later on, could very well be genuine. I got no thought about them.
Jim Fetzer would probably say the same thing - perhaps!

Now here is where the play on words comes into effect TM.

"Fakery" as Jim Fetzer uses the word encompasses all of the positions I've outlined above. Not in terms of a "military op" or where the evidence (or blanket censorship of) points to a craft other than the OS planes being involved in the military ops.

There's a major difference and I don't understand why I have to point this out!

There's no play on words, OSS. Either 'fakery' took place, or it didn't. I think it's very clear and obvious that 'fakery' did take place.

I think I've explained myself on what comes under the "umbrella of fakery" TM, no?

No, not really, OSS!

Peace

OSS

Peace to you too, buddy -

Cheers