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   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Debunkers Respond To Dennis Cimino, A Few Comments Copy & Pasted

mrmitosis
post Mar 16 2012, 06:50 PM
Post #1





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 232
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



Edit by Rob Balsamo - I would like to make it clear that Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not endorse the No Plane Theory nor the article mentioned in the OP.

I personally have not read the article in detail, nor do i intend to. People are free to make their own choices.

Please keep in mind the disclaimer in white text at the top of the forum when reviewing this thread and the article referenced.

Thank you.



Dennis Cimino posted an article on Veterans Today earlier this week discussing the Pentagon attack and the unresolved issues within the FDR data.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/13/91...k-is-a-fantasy/

Debunkers are already talking about it. I'd appreciate any responses to the comments below, to help me deal with a particularly loathsome GL on YouTube. (If not, I'm sure I can manage on my own...it'll just take a little bit longer whistle.gif...)

If he knows what hes talking about, why does he insist the FDR recorder shows the plane flying just over the West Wing of the White House on its way to the Penty, when even the twoofies pilots admit it shows no such thing?

Why does Dennis the ignorant fux insist the plane was heading 180, made a 330 degree right hand turn, then impact at heading 070. I mean HONESTLY, you fuxing moron, before pretending someone is an expert. Before pretending somone knows what he is talkin gabout, dont you think its a good ideaq to find out if the idiot can do SIMPLE FUXING 3RD GRADE ARITHMETIC FIRST?!?!?!?!??!?!?!

I mean Jesus tittfuxing christ! Even the little drooler picture Dennis drew of the AA77 flight path doesnt even show a 270 degreee turn. Instantly noticeable to anyone not a complete idiot (like Goebbels is) Yet Dennis the Moron keeps insisting a less than 270 degreee turn was an exact 330 degree turn? LMGDAOOOO

Dennis the Moron debunks herself frequently. At one moment (supposedly disproving a claim that data can sit in a buffer for several seconds before being recorded) that the FAR requires the data to be accurately recorded at least once a second. Then dismisses the Radar Altimiter data that disproves the "380 above the light poles" lie due to a magic carpet that was following the plane around, remaining underneath the Radalt ant. making it read falsely low--AND then claiming the Radal data is (contrary to previous claims) ofte ntimes "in lag" by several seconds. Dennis the Moron cant even keep his story straight. No wonder anyone with the smallest SHRED of aviation and avionics knowledge long ago dismissed his bullshit.


This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Mar 19 2012, 03:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 16 2012, 06:52 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

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



feel free to email Dennis... i havent seen the article.

Check your PM's for his email addy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Mar 16 2012, 07:05 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

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



What's the YT link MrM?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Mar 16 2012, 08:52 PM
Post #4





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 232
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 16 2012, 06:05 PM) *
What's the YT link MrM?


Oh, it's just Rkowens4's channel comments board.

http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4/feed?filter=1

By the time you get there, the discussion will have been bumped downwards and lost forever - just one of the lousy "improvements" to the new YT format nonono.gif

Also, a warning if you do bother checking it out - my potty mouth is fully engaged whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Mar 17 2012, 01:19 AM
Post #5





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 232
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 16 2012, 05:52 PM) *
feel free to email Dennis... i havent seen the article.

Check your PM's for his email addy.


Thanks pal. But I don't think it will be necessary...I just fly swatted the little disinfo merchant into a brick wall on my own. Fortunately, it doesn't require an expert to deal with duhbunkers of that calibre cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 17 2012, 08:34 PM
Post #6





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



Well, there are three studies in this series as follows:

"9/11: Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/91...d-video-fakery/

"9/11: The official account of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/91...d-video-fakery/

"The 9/11 Passenger Paradox: What happened to the passengers?"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/15/th...d-to-flight-93/

Let me suggest that, instead of emoting about how much we don't know and how smart you are, just
identify the claims we make, explain why we make them, and then provide the reasons you think we
are wrong. Since two of these planes were not even scheduled and the other two were not deregistered
until 28 September 2005, how can planes that were not in the air have crashed or planes that crashed
have still been in the air four years later? And, of course, as Pilots has shown, Flights 93 and 175 were
in the air, but Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time it was supposed to be crashing in Shanksville,
and Flight 175 was also in the air, but over Pittsburgh, PA, at the same time it was allegedly making an
effortless entry into the South Tower. So, unless you believe that the same plane can be in two places
at the same time, some kinds of video fakery have to have been employed in New York City on 9/11.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Mar 17 2012, 09:20 PM
Post #7





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 232
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



Thanks, Jim rolleyes.gif

For the record, this is how I ended up RESPONDING to the criticism I CTRL-C/CTRL-V'd from comments made by SOMEONE ELSE (that's why I italicised it) in the original post. Please, I would welcome any corrections if anyone feels they are warranted.

"Well played, Edge. Citing arguments that were never put forward in the article as a basis for criticising it. Where does Dennis claim anything about radar altimeter lag? Radio waves move at light speed; there is no lag associated with the radar altimeter reading. Where does Dennis say that there is? I just did an automated search in Microsoft Word - the term "lag" appears not once in the entire document. And where does Dennis state that a 330 degree turn with a starting point of 180 will result in a heading of 070? The plane's heading was 100 before making the 330 turn, with the indicator showing a new heading of...you guessed it: 070!!! Exactly who are YOU accusing of failing basic math? Why do you misquote and LIE about Cimino's statement about the position of the plane relative to the Whitehouse? Huh, Edge? Are you just HOPING that people will swallow your appalling disinfo without even READING the article? HTF can you look at yourself in the mirror?"

This post has been edited by mrmitosis: Mar 17 2012, 09:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Mar 17 2012, 10:53 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

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



QUOTE
According to the official account, AA Flight 77 approached the Pentagon on an acute north-east trajectory, barely skimming the ground at over 500 mph and taking out multiple lampposts


"Flight 77" came in from the southwest according to the official story and directional damage.

I don't like to see verified, substantial on the ground and physical/aerodynamical evidence being lumped in with with "no plane" theories.

Whatever your take on Manhattan, Shanksville and the Pentagon are a different kettle of fish. There were planes that all evidence independently verifiable to us points to them not being 77 and 93. An explosive event occurred but witnesses, damage and lack of identifiable debris point to a flyover.

QUOTE
9/11: The official account of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/91...d-video-fakery


That link actually leads to this..

"9/11: Planes/No Planes and “Video Fakery"

Why place painstaking Pentagon research and solid proof under such a banner?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Mar 17 2012, 11:50 PM
Post #9





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 232
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 17 2012, 09:53 PM) *
I don't like to see verified, substantial on the ground and physical/aerodynamical evidence being lumped in with with "no plane" theories.


Also, I think it's disingenuous to reference Dennis' article for the purposes of leveraging NPT. There's nothing in there which lends support to that theory. At all. It's a misrepresentation of his argument.

Or perhaps I'm wrong. Do you have Dennis Cimino on record, stating that he subscribes to a No Planes version of events, Mr Fetzer?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Mar 18 2012, 09:40 AM
Post #10


Woody Box


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 266
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 20




I'm a litte bit surprised. Didn't Dennis cancel his appearance on Kevin Barrett's show in January and announced his "retiring from activism" because he is "frustrated" with those in the truth movement who are protecting the "Zionist perps"?

I'm not sure if this erratic behavior is helpful for the movement, and I can't understand how such an intelligent guy like Dennis seriously refers to the "research" of no-planer Gerard Holmgren, let alone the "the Mossad did it" theme. I'm completely with Webster Tarpley here - 9/11 was synthetic terror made in USA, and Israel played an observing role at most.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Mar 18 2012, 10:56 AM
Post #11



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (woody @ Mar 18 2012, 02:40 PM) *
I'm a litte bit surprised. Didn't Dennis cancel his appearance on Kevin Barrett's show in January and announced his "retiring from activism" because he is "frustrated" with those in the truth movement who are protecting the "Zionist perps"?

I'm not sure if this erratic behavior is helpful for the movement, and I can't understand how such an intelligent guy like Dennis seriously refers to the "research" of no-planer Gerard Holmgren, let alone the "the Mossad did it" theme. I'm completely with Webster Tarpley here - 9/11 was synthetic terror made in USA, and Israel played an observing role at most.


I don't think that Israeli involvement is in question personally and think he may be referring to those within the "truth movement" who pull out the "anti-semite card" whenever the dreaded "I" word is even mentioned but I'd like to see where he actually mentions the "no planes" theory?

I've read the link

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/13/91...k-is-a-fantasy/

And don't see it mentioned anywhere.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Mar 18 2012, 11:08 AM
Post #12





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



Jim Fetzer

I wonder if it's possible you might help settle a bet I have at another site? Is it possible to say how much of that EXCELLENT article was written by Dennis, and how much by you?

I read it at VT, and it is one of the best articles I can remember reading. Fantastic analysis of the big picture regarding the Pentagon attack.

I'm going to check here if there is any sort of bio for Dennis Cimino. He must be former military, and I'm asssuming he does or has flown for one of the airlines.

Great job.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Mar 18 2012, 01:34 PM
Post #13



Group Icon

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



From your link Jim.

QUOTE
Pilots for 9/11 Truth Corroboration

Indeed, the evidence that United Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville and that United Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower has been considerably strengthened by new discoveries from Pilots for 9/11 Truth.  By means of meticulous research on electronic communications between those aircraft and air traffic controllers, they have been able to establish that United Flight 93 was in the air in the vicinity of Fort Wayne, IN, and Champaign, IL, at the time of the alleged Shanksville crash.  Since no aircraft can be in two places at one time, it is difficult to imagine more conclusive proof that the Shanksville crash of Flight 93 was another fabricated event


QUOTE
Even more surprisingly, however, Pilots has also determined that United Flight 175 was in the air in the vicinity of Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was purportedly crashing into the South Tower in New York City


QUOTE
How can a Boeing 767 possibly travel at an impossible speed (as Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed), enter a steel and concrete building in violation of Newton’s laws, pass through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air, and not have its fuel explode as it makes contact with that massive edifice? Even the frames from the Pentagon show a huge fireball upon impact. If that was true of the 757 there, why is it not also true of the 767 here? It looks as though, in this respect, the fabrication of Flight 77 fakery was just a bit better than the fabrication of Flight 175 fakery.


QUOTE
“9/11 Fake: Media Make Believe”

The serious question that has to arise at this point, of course, is “Why?” Would it not have been far simpler just to fly a real plane into the North Tower and another into the South? Where the answer turns out to be, “No”. Pilots for 9/11 Truth discovered that it is extremely difficult to hit an edifice 208′ across at more than 500 mph. After 20 or more tried it repeatedly, only one was able to hit it once. In addition, a real plane could not enter all the way into the building before it would explode. But that was a requirement of the mission, since otherwise there would have been no pseudo-explanation for the subsequent “collapse” of the buildings due to fire. And equally important, the explosions that were planned for the subbasements to drain the towers’ sprinkler systems of water so they could not extinguish the relatively modest fires that would remain after the pre-positioned jet fuel was consumed in those spectacular fireballs. The plan was to explain them away as residual effects of jet fuel falling through the elevator shafts–a flawed theory, but good enough for a gullible public


Subtle as a breezeblock. Interweaving Pilotsfor911Truth fact and evidence into NPT.
And you think that this "Hollywood op" would be "easier" than flying an aircraft into the towers? Nice disconnect from the possibility that the aircraft was modified to penetrate and explode.

Speculation, I know, but NPT has way too many loose ends.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lurker
post Mar 18 2012, 02:33 PM
Post #14





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 41
Joined: 29-March 08
Member No.: 3,061



hello all,

I have read cimino's article at veteranstoday.
but now I am very disturbed because in one of the pictures he shows a flight path that in no way resembles the path I have seen and learned from p4t's videos, where the approach and 330 degree descend is shown.

did I get something very wrong? please could explain someone what I am missing?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Mar 18 2012, 11:26 PM
Post #15



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (jimfetzer)
And, of course, as Pilots has shown, Flights 93 and 175 were
in the air, but Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time it was supposed to be crashing in Shanksville,
and Flight 175 was also in the air, but over Pittsburgh, PA, at the same time it was allegedly making an
effortless entry into the South Tower. So, unless you believe that the same plane can be in two places
at the same time, some kinds of video fakery have to have been employed in New York City on 9/11.


I think at this point Columbo usually spins on his heels and says.."just one more thing"

The documented ACARS data and the statements of those who ""translated" them for the FBI, coupled with the 175 flying way over its limitations and the refusal/denial of FDRs and "debris" identification are solid facts. To lump NTP baggage onto them is designed to weaken and distract. Just as the "A3 skyWarrior", missile and "NOC impact" baggage is an attempt to weaken the NOC witness testimonies.

4cents
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Mar 19 2012, 01:15 AM
Post #16





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 232
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 18 2012, 10:08 AM) *
I'm going to check here if there is any sort of bio for Dennis Cimino. He must be former military, and I'm asssuming he does or has flown for one of the airlines.


Rob interviewed Dennis some time ago, during which his experience was touched upon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_1Dd2xZ8SQ

I don't have the facilities on this computer to listen again to the interview itself, but the video description states that Cimino is a "Flight Data Recorder Expert and Former Navy Combat Systems Specialist" - although I'm pretty sure a comprehensive version of his resume would go a lot further than that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Mar 19 2012, 01:25 AM
Post #17





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 232
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



QUOTE (lurker @ Mar 18 2012, 01:33 PM) *
hello all,

I have read cimino's article at veteranstoday.
but now I am very disturbed because in one of the pictures he shows a flight path that in no way resembles the path I have seen and learned from p4t's videos, where the approach and 330 degree descend is shown.

did I get something very wrong? please could explain someone what I am missing?


One debunker dismisses the fact that the NTSB animation shows a North of Citgo flight path as insignificant because those types of landmarks are drawn in by a graphic artist...

laughing1.gif

Now, I am sure that this has to be total bullshit, but I am unsure of how to prove it...

Any ideas?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Mar 19 2012, 04:13 AM
Post #18


Woody Box


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 266
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 18 2012, 02:56 PM) *
I don't think that Israeli involvement is in question personally and think he may be referring to those within the "truth movement" who pull out the "anti-semite card" whenever the dreaded "I" word is even mentioned but I'd like to see where he actually mentions the "no planes" theory?

I've read the link

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/13/91...k-is-a-fantasy/

And don't see it mentioned anywhere.


The screenshot of the BTS database with the missing Fl77 data is a pretty subtle way to mention NPT. And this is no accident, but Idon't like to cite from private emails.

Frankly, I'm deeply disappotinted with Dennis. A serious researcher should stay away from Fetzer.
You have a new exotic theory concerning the WTC demolition? Go to Fetzer.
You have new evidence for video fakery? Go to Fetzer.
You have evidence that the Zionist perps did it? Go to Fetzer. You're welcome.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Mar 19 2012, 11:31 AM
Post #19



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Mar 19 2012, 06:25 AM) *
One debunker dismisses the fact that the NTSB animation shows a North of Citgo flight path as insignificant because those types of landmarks are drawn in by a graphic artist...

laughing1.gif

Now, I am sure that this has to be total bullshit, but I am unsure of how to prove it...

Any ideas?


Must be the same "graphics problem" that NORAD had

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHjN4sfyqIc...be_gdata_player



Or National Geographic



Or the alleged last RADES datapoints



Alleged DME reading on FDR (alleged)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2kKAxIZNG8...be_gdata_player



And of course, these people

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o...be_gdata_player

I'm sure he'll say that they were "wrong", just like the JFK, TWA800 and Oklahoma witnesses.

Now, the official "data", I don't trust it (most don't show the Washington DC flightpath and the "loop" totally within the west of the Potomac River), but if this guy questions it all, he's also questioning the official version and if that's the case, aren't you/we right to demand an explanation?

If he mentions Stutt, tell him that his work is both flawed and irrelevant. It's not verified and has nothing to do with the OCT. It's an OCT subplot designed for govt loyalists to paper over the cracks thumbsup.gif








Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Mar 19 2012, 11:41 AM
Post #20



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (woody @ Mar 19 2012, 09:13 AM) *
The screenshot of the BTS database with the missing Fl77 data is a pretty subtle way to mention NPT. And this is no accident, but Idon't like to cite from private emails.

Frankly, I'm deeply disappotinted with Dennis. A serious researcher should stay away from Fetzer.
You have a new exotic theory concerning the WTC demolition? Go to Fetzer.
You have new evidence for video fakery? Go to Fetzer.
You have evidence that the Zionist perps did it? Go to Fetzer. You're welcome.


Hi woody,

There's an ambiguous line between NPT, "holograms" and "video fakery and planeswapping according to Jim Fetzer. Between a rational military type op that points to flyovers in Arlington and Shanksville and NPT.

I'd have to wait for Dennis' clarification before commenting.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

16 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st October 2019 - 06:44 AM