IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

16 Pages V  « < 14 15 16  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Debunkers Respond To Dennis Cimino, A Few Comments Copy & Pasted

elreb
post Apr 17 2012, 06:18 PM
Post #301





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Apr 17 2012, 06:02 AM) *
I rather suspect that more sophisticated technology would have been utilized then; sort of more in line with what DARPA

I get a kick out of John Lear…

He claims that a platform…”Did it”!




Enhanced Imaging System (EIS), First Titan IV-B launch from VAFB

American reconnaissance satellite program

A derivative of the Improved Crystal satellites, EIS replaced Misty, and was intended to provide more coverage and dwell time than previous reconnaissance satellites; like Misty, it has stealth capabilities.

Only one EIS satellite has been launched; USA-144, which was placed into orbit by a Titan IVB rocket on 22 May 1999.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 17 2012, 06:33 PM
Post #302



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (elreb @ Apr 17 2012, 06:18 PM) *
I get a kick out of John Lear…

He claims that a platform…”Did it”!


Yes, but unlike Cimino and his messenger boy Fetzer, Lear doesn't go around using our work to support his theories. He also understands that "Impossible speed" does not validate "No Plane Theories", which is why Lear remains a Core Member to this day.

Again, people are free to explore any theory they want. But when they start to use our work/my work to support their theories in such a fashion to make it appear Pilots For 9/11 Truth as an organization also support such theories, as Fetzer has done in such a misleading manner, is where we draw the line.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Apr 17 2012, 06:45 PM
Post #303





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Apr 17 2012, 12:33 PM) *
...Lear doesn't go around using our work to support his theories...
.

I agree and I also think that we should investigate the “NRO” and Crystal satellites…

Has anyone ever talked about the “NRO”?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 21 2012, 04:45 PM
Post #304



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (elreb @ Apr 17 2012, 06:45 PM) *
I agree and I also think that we should investigate the “NRO” and Crystal satellites…

Has anyone ever talked about the “NRO”?


NRO as in National Reconnaissance Office? I'm sure people have talked about it... try a search.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Apr 21 2012, 09:48 PM
Post #305





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Apr 21 2012, 10:45 AM) *
NRO as in National Reconnaissance Office? I'm sure people have talked about it... try a search.

Rob…this may seem to be off subject…however…you never know! Maybe John Lear is not crazy?

EIS fleet is USA 144 (1999-028A), launched in May 1999.

Improved Crystal...American Military Surveillance Satellite [AMSS]

Operational, first launch 1992.11.28. Improved CRYSTAL was an optical reconnaissance satellite built for the US National Reconnaissance Office. Prime contractor was LMA.

Instruments included a large telescope with visual and near infrared wavelength CCD sensors and the ICMS mapping system.

The satellite succeeded the KH-11.

Public attribution of the KH-12 designation to the satellite was believed to be incorrect.

The basic optical package may have been similar to the KH-11, but with improved avionics and a great deal more maneuvering propellant.

The satellite was believed to include signals intelligence payloads, and had wider spectral band sensitivity, perhaps 'real time' television capability, and other improvements compared to the KH-11.
It was meant to be shuttle-launched, after the USAF abandoned its shuttle plans it was lightened and modified for Titan 4 launch. Data transmitted via SDS military relay satellites.

The ICM propulsion bus, developed by NRL for a 'classified program', proposed as a tug for the International Space Station, was believed to have been based on the Improved Crystal's propulsion module.

AKA: KH-12; KH-11B; Ikon.

Gross mass: 18,000 kg (39,000 lb).

Unfuelled mass: 11,000 kg (24,000 lb).

First Launch: 1992.11.28.

Last Launch: 2011.01.20.

1999 May 22 - . 09:36 GMT - . Launch Site: Vandenberg. Launch Complex: Vandenberg SLC4E. LV Family: Titan. Launch Vehicle: Titan 404B. LV Configuration: Titan 404B 4B-12.

USA 144 - . Nation: USA. Agency: NRO. Class: Surveillance. Type: Military surveillance satellite.

Spacecraft: Misty. USAF Sat Cat: 25744 . COSPAR: 1999-028A. Apogee: 3,100 km (1,900 mi). Perigee: 2,700 km (1,600 mi). Inclination: 63.5000 deg.

This classified National Reconnaissance Office satellite represented the first successful Titan launch in four attempts.

The payload had been reported to be a Lacrosse radar imaging reconnaissance satellite.

However the short 50 foot Titan fairing was used instead of the 66 foot fairing used by Lacrosse.

This seems be an Improved CRYSTAL derivative.

Veteran amateur satellite-watchers believed it was the second launch of 'Misty', a stealthy optical reconnaissance satellite.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 30 2012, 04:57 AM
Post #306



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I have been informed of some false arguments and logical fallicies still being made by Dennis Cimino and his messenger boy Fetzer... so I'll just clear this up real quick here for anyone who needs it for reference.

I find it hilarious that Jim Fetzer is attempting to use videos in which he claims are fake, in order to prove that the aircraft do not appear to be modified. If the videos are fake according to Fetzer, how can he possibly use them as proof to determine type aircraft or rule out the possibility of any type of internal modification on the actual aircraft witnessed by hundreds in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and across the river in Jersey?

Clearly Cimino is also not familiar with how aircraft can be modified without any apparent external evidence of modification. Aircraft Accident Investigators don't use blurry youtube videos to determine aircraft type and performance, and they certainly wouldn't use videos in which they felt were fake. Cimino is really joking when he uses videos in which he feels are fake, to determine aircraft type and modification... right? He must be joking, not even Dennis would make such absurd claims. At least, I hope he wouldn't.

As any real Aircraft Accident Investigator, or Aeronautical Engineer will tell you Jim... Such modification can only be detected through inspecting the numerous parts recovered from lower Manhattan. Engine cowls, internal engine components, internal wing components, opening wing panels, close control surface inspection.. .etc.

As I explained elsewhere, using a real airplane, it doesn't take much to increase aircraft performance significantly, without any changes to external aircraft appearance.

The best part is that Jim Fetzer thinks that the videos "represent Flight 175 and since Flight 175 was in western PA according to ACARS, it could not have been in NYC, therefore the videos must be fake!". (paraphrased)

Well no Jim, the videos represent an aircraft painted in United colors. Your leap in logic is astounding given the credentials you claim to have. There is nothing in the videos which 'represent' or provide POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION that it was in fact United Flight 175.

Using your logic, every single 767 painted in United Colors is "Flight 175". Psst Jim, I'll let you in on a secret that most of the world already knows, you cannot determine a Flight Number from a blurry youtube video. lol

Fetzer, you used to teach critical thinking and logic? Really? Your students should ask for a refund.

Jim, why doesn't the FAA Airman database have Dennis Cimino listed as holding a Flight Engineer Certificate as required for the Second Officer position claimed in his credentials posted to your articles? Why wasn't Dennis Cimino listed as being a Second Officer when he was listed as a Core Member of Pilots For 9/11 Truth?

I'll tell you why, it is because Dennis is lying to you.

Hope this helps for those of you who come across such absurd arguments made by Messenger Boy Fetzer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 30 2012, 09:29 AM
Post #307



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



What's the difference in bodyframe between these two 747s?





This...

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Componen...hotoblog900.jpg

QUOTE
Weights

Empty: 151,315 lb (68,635 kg)
With main engines: 171,000 lb (77,564 kg)

Source


QUOTE
The aircraft was extensively modified by Boeing in 1976.[2] Its cabin was stripped, mounting struts added, and the fuselage strengthened; vertical stabilizers were added to the tail to aid stability when the Orbiter was being carried. The avionics and engines were also upgraded, and an escape tunnel system similar to that used on Boeing's first 747 test flights was added. The flight crew escape tunnel system was later removed following the completion of the Approach and Landing Tests (ALT) due to concerns over possible engine ingestion of an escaping crew member

Flying with the additional drag and weight of the Orbiter imposed significant fuel and altitude penalties. The range was reduced to 1,000 nautical miles (1,850 km), compared to an unladen range of 5500 nautical miles (10,100 km),[3] requiring an SCA to stop several times to refuel on a transcontinental flight. The SCA had an altitude ceiling of 15,000 feet and a maximum cruise speed of Mach 0.6 (445mph) with the orbiter attached.

Source


This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Apr 30 2012, 10:59 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 30 2012, 10:39 AM
Post #308



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Apr 30 2012, 09:29 AM) *
What's the difference in bodyframe between these two 747s?


Yes, good example OSS. (i actually edited your KLM photo for a better example with United paint).

If Cimino (through his messenger boy Fetzer) is going to use video in which he feels "video composting and CGI" were used, to rule out the possibility of aircraft modification, they may as well use my animation(s) to rule out such possibilities... after all, we know for a fact this is CGI, at least I do... i made it!




(Enter Fetzer/Cimino Logic)
The above video proves the aircraft seen in NY that day could not have any modification whatsoever and had to be a hologram!
(End Fetzer/Cimino Logic)

laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 5 2012, 03:08 AM
Post #309



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Just adding an update for the historical record and for the archives.... Dennis is now threatening a lawsuit against me and Youtube if we do not take down his interviews and analysis -


"I have contacted You Tube to have both 'INTERCEPTED' and my FLT 77 FDR interview removed from the johndoeXLC channel
and so far they have been non-compliant, insisting that I need a court order to do that. I have also threatened You Tube with a lawsuit if they do not comply with the removal of those videos, and made that crystal clear to their legal group. And I am absolutely heart attack serious about this. I want them DOWN." - Dennis Cimino via email


Unfortunately for Dennis, I have perhaps over 300 emails from him detailing, praising, reviewing and giving me permission to use his analysis. His analysis has been up on the web for nearly 2 and 5 years respectively, and now apparently he wants them removed after he goes full blown no planer. Sorry Dennis, but I'm not going to jump through hoops for you just because you are now a bit pissed off that we do not support No plane theories.

Dennis, stick to what you know, electronics and FDR analysis, and perhaps you won't be so pissed off when we expose your extreme lack of aeronautical knowledge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Aug 11 2012, 02:39 PM
Post #310





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



In an effort to keep it positive, I happened to see a video of him speaking in Canada. I thought he explained technological issues very well. The part at the beginning was best, as he was not the very best of speakers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Apr 28 2014, 10:35 PM
Post #311





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



[mod edit: the following two posts merged with the thread in question since apparently the 'NP1Mike' didn't make it a point to source the original thread in his post, and only gave an opinion without allowing readers to read the full context of his reference. Very poor form from 'NP1Mike' and he has been warned]



As I was reading a recent thread here, I was lead to a post about Dennis Cimino's talk at the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings.

In the post he was dutifully trashed by Rob and O.S.S. Why?

He was trashed by Rob for making some errors that he considers basic knowledge for a trained jet pilot and was trashed by O.S.S. for not supporting the NOC theory.

I believe it was 'amazed' who came along and tried to defend Dennis, but Rob and O.S.S. would have none of that.

This post ties right into this.

When I signed up here, in my first or one of my first posts, I detailed what was going to be my mantra here, saying I would likely repeat myself about it many times.

It's time once again to repeat myself.

For me, it has always been more important to look at the big picture of 9/11 rather than concern myself about small details. I'm a 'forest' type of a guy rather than a 'tree guy'.

Sure it's fun to debate this and that angle or aspect of 9/11 (planes, no planes, nukes, holograms, thermite/thermate, DEW, CGI, aircraft speed, fake ID's etc. etc.) and I can scrap with the best of them, make no mistake about it.

But at the end of the day, surely everyone must realize that we are all on the same team.

Steve, a genuine truther believes A, B, C, E and G happened on 9/11.

Bill, another genuine truther believes A, B, D, E and G happened on 9/11.

Jane, another genuine truther believes B, C, D, E and F happened on 9/11.

Peter, another genuine truther believes B, D, E, F and G happened on 9/11.
etc. (I think you get the picture by now...)

Not everyone who believes the NOC theory believes nukes were used.
Ditto for thermite.
Ditto for thermate.
Ditto for DEW etc. etc.

Not everyone who believes CGI was used and no planes were used believes nukes were used.
Ditto for thermite.
Ditto for thermate.
Ditto for DEW etc. etc.

Not everyone who believes holograms were instead of real planes believes nukes were used.
Ditto for thermite.
Ditto for thermate.
Ditto for DEW etc. etc.

Not everyone who believes missiles were used instead of real planes believes nukes were used.
Ditto for thermite.
Ditto for thermate.
Ditto for DEW etc. etc. (I think you get the picture by now...)

What I'm getting at is that genuine truthers come in all different kinds of colors, flavors and varieties.
To expect all truthers to believe the exact same theories down to the last final detail is completely unrealistic.

All genuine truthers share a common thread however.
This is the key; the real key (not Ace Baker's).
What is that common thread?

The common thread is that each and every last truther does not believe the official government 9/11 story (OST).

Once people can understand this fundamental
principle, then perhaps much of the petty bickering that goes on here and at almost every other 9/11 site can be channeled into something much more constructive.

What do I consider a more constructive use of time in this endeavor?

Educating the public at large about all the holes in the OST.
Enlisting big name politicians, movie stars and other celebrities to pitch the importance of discovering the truth about 9/11 whenever possible, and to explain why it is so important today and for the rest of this century.

A new 9/11 inquiry on American soil or even foreign soil would obviously be a big bonus as well.

It is my firm belief that all, (and I mean ALL) 'name truthers' such as Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood, Ace Baker (yes even him), Rosalee Grable, Morgan Reynolds, John Lear, Killtown, Richard D. Hall, David Griffin, Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Dr. Niels Harrit, Dennis Cimino, etc. etc. are genuine 9/11 truthers and not paid government shills.

These people simply are strongly committed to their beliefs (just as most of us are) and can't be faulted for that.

To return to Dennis Cimino...

I watched his talk at the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings more than twice (all of it).

What did I take away from his talk?

Certainly not the fact that he doesn't know anything about rudder peddle use on jets!

I learned that the flight data recorder information provided by the NTSB for Flt. 77 was fraudulent.

I learned that the data written to the memory module for aircraft ID and fleet ID was manipulated for Flt. 77

I learned that the auto-pilot was never disengaged for Flt. 77.

I learned that the cockpit door was never opened on Flt. 77 during its flight.

To me, Dennis Cimino has contributed important information in the grand scheme of 9/11, despite his lack of technical knowledge of flying jet aircraft and his personal beliefs about what happened on 9/11.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 28 2014, 11:38 PM
Post #312



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



NP!Mike,

If you had actually read through the thread... you would perhaps know why?

In fact... perhaps I should merge this topic with the actual thread so those reading can understand why?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

16 Pages V  « < 14 15 16
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 6th December 2019 - 10:14 PM