Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Alternative Theories _ Debunkers Respond To Dennis Cimino

Posted by: mrmitosis Mar 16 2012, 06:50 PM

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/2012/03/13/911-the-official-account-of-the-pentagon-attack-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.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 16 2012, 06:52 PM

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

Check your PM's for his email addy.

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 16 2012, 07:05 PM

What's the YT link MrM?

Posted by: mrmitosis Mar 16 2012, 08:52 PM

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

Posted by: mrmitosis Mar 17 2012, 01:19 AM

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

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 17 2012, 08:34 PM

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

"9/11: Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/

"9/11: The official account of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/

"The 9/11 Passenger Paradox: What happened to the passengers?"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/15/the-911-passenger-paradox-what-happened-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.

Posted by: mrmitosis Mar 17 2012, 09:20 PM

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?"

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 17 2012, 10:53 PM

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?




Posted by: mrmitosis Mar 17 2012, 11:50 PM

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?

Posted by: woody Mar 18 2012, 09:40 AM


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.




Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 18 2012, 10:56 AM

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/2012/03/13/911-the-official-account-of-the-pentagon-attack-is-a-fantasy/

And don't see it mentioned anywhere.

Posted by: amazed! Mar 18 2012, 11:08 AM

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.

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 18 2012, 01:34 PM

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.

Posted by: lurker Mar 18 2012, 02:33 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?

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 18 2012, 11:26 PM

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

Posted by: mrmitosis Mar 19 2012, 01:15 AM

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.

Posted by: mrmitosis Mar 19 2012, 01:25 AM

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?

Posted by: woody Mar 19 2012, 04:13 AM

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/2012/03/13/911-the-official-account-of-the-pentagon-attack-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.




Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 19 2012, 11:31 AM

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&feature=youtube_gdata_player



Or National Geographic



Or the alleged last RADES datapoints



Alleged DME reading on FDR (alleged)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2kKAxIZNG8&feature=youtube_gdata_player



And of course, these people

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o&feature=youtube_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









Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 19 2012, 11:41 AM

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.

Posted by: amazed! Mar 19 2012, 02:41 PM

Mitosis

Thanks for the link to the interview with Cimino. He sounds very credible to me.

Fetzer advised me yesterday that his only contribution to the piece at hand was the intro. Cimino did the rest, and that's the way it looks too.

Fetzer is clearly in the 'no planes at WTC' group, though I think he would rather avoid trying to reconcile the testimony and photographic evidence from ordinary folks (as opposed to MSM) showing at least 1 Boeing at WTC.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 19 2012, 03:10 PM

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.

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 19 2012, 11:28 PM

QUOTE (lurker @ Mar 18 2012, 07:33 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?


Hi lurker,

No you aren't missing anything.  You are correct.

Dennis Cimino is citing the http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/steves-analysis.htm that is nothing like the NTSB data and was estimated years before the NTSB data was released. 

I don't know why it was cited. It's irrelevant to the OCT.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 20 2012, 12:37 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 19 2012, 11:28 PM) *
Dennis Cimino is citing the http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/steves-analysis.htm that is nothing like the NTSB data and was estimated years before the NTSB data was released. 

I don't know why it was cited. It's irrelevant to the OCT.


In fairness to Dennis, he did email me. He says he did not choose that photograph.

Dennis can post here. It is up to him if he wants to.

Posted by: mrmitosis Mar 20 2012, 12:46 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 19 2012, 11:37 PM) *
In fairness to Dennis, he did email me. He says he did not choose that photograph.


Hmmm...so it appears that it was an editorial decision made on behalf of Veterans Today?

Mr Fetzer, do you wish to comment?

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 20 2012, 01:15 AM

Both articles discuss the impossibility of a Boeing 757 travelling more than 500 mph close enough to the ground to take out those lampposts, which would have ripped the wing from the plane, caused the fuel to burst into flame, thrown it off of its trajectory and damaged the lawn in the process. A Boeing 757 cannot fly that fast at that altitude and ground effect would have made flying so close to the ground impossible. I cite "Pandora's Black Box" and the work by CIT, so I really have no idea what you are talking about. They are "different kettles of fish" in the sense that they were faked using different methods in each case, but they are the same insofar as no Boeing 757s crashed at Shanksville or hit the Pentagon and no 767 hit either tower.

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 17 2012, 09:53 PM) *
"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.

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?


Posted by: jfetzer Mar 20 2012, 01:17 AM

Yes, of course. I put up all of the images and graphics, including the disputed one. So
I would be glad to replace it with a better depiction of the approach, where I thought the
one I used was appropriate. I am glad to be corrected, since apparently I was mistaken.

But bear in mind that it was intended to represent the "official account" of the approach
that an incompetent Islamic hijacker is supposed to have taken, not the actual approach
of a plane that flew on a virtually due east approach at higher altitude and slower speed.

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Mar 19 2012, 11:46 PM) *
Hmmm...so it appears that it was an editorial decision made on behalf of Veterans Today?

Mr Fetzer, do you wish to comment?

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 20 2012, 01:20 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 20 2012, 01:15 AM) *
...and ground effect would have made flying so close to the ground impossible.



Wrong.

Read and learn.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=12549&view=findpost&p=10741011

QUOTE
I cite "Pandora's Black Box" and the work by CIT, so I really have no idea what you are talking about.


If you "cite" our work, be sure to actually read our work. Start with the link above and note the dates.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 20 2012, 01:22 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 20 2012, 01:17 AM) *
I would be glad to replace it with a better depiction of the approach, where I thought the
one I used was appropriate. I am glad to be corrected, since apparently I was mistaken.


You claim to have reviewed our work and yet you publish an illustration dated perhaps 2 years (or more) prior to the inception of Pilots For 9/11 Truth and release of the NTSB data?

Jim... i'm sad to say.. .but put down the crack pipe.


Posted by: jfetzer Mar 20 2012, 01:31 AM

Given the degree of respect I have for Rob and for Pilots, I simply do not understand the denigrating tone of this post. I have said to Rob that, when he insists that Pilots "does not deal in theory", he means that term in the weak sense of guess, speculation, or rumor. He surely does not mean it in the strong sense of empirically testable explanatory hypotheses, as in the case of Newton's theory of gravitation, Einstein's theory of relativity, or Darwin's theory of evolution.

All of my work--on JFK, 9/11 and Wellstone--has been dedicated to taking research on these complex and controversial subjects from the state of mere rumor and speculation to that of empirically testable hypotheses. I cannot understand why the head of Pilots would declare that he is "not going to read" an article that should be of enormous interest to the members of this group--and where I would welcome any explanation of what I or Dennis have wrong. That would be terrific!

Unless the same plane can be in two places at the same time, since Pilots has confirmed that Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time it was supposed to have been crashing in Shanksville, and that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was alleged to be effortlessly entering the South Tower, we have to be dealing with fabricated crash sites and some kind of fakery. That's not theory, that's logic! Surely Pilots ought to be contributing to exposing this, not disputing it.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 19 2012, 02:10 PM) *
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.


Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 20 2012, 01:35 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 20 2012, 01:31 AM) *
Unless the same plane can be in two places at the same time,


Jim, two, three, five.. .perhaps 20 aircraft...can have the same flight number.

I'll let that bake your noodle for a bit. tongue.gif

(certainly it will throw the duhbunkers for a loop)

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 20 2012, 01:40 AM

Well, I don't claim to be an expert on every aspect of 9/11. If I mistakenly picked the wrong diagram, you could have pointed that out to me. Now that you have, I have replaced it. But your attitude of "not going to read" a study that should be of such great interest to your society just stuns me. What have I or Dennis done to deserve that? I have supposed that research on 9/11 was a collaborative enterprise, which is why I founded Scholars: to bring together experts in different fields, including pilots. So if you have an axe to grind with me, that's fine; but I hope others will understand that I am open to and welcome constructive criticism.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 20 2012, 12:22 AM) *
You claim to have reviewed our work and yet you publish an illustration dated perhaps 2 years (or more) prior to the inception of Pilots For 9/11 Truth and release of the NTSB data?

Jim... i'm sad to say.. .but put down the crack pipe.



Posted by: jfetzer Mar 20 2012, 01:43 AM

This is bad, Rob. I cite your own work establishing that Flights 93 and 175
were not where they were supposed to be (which you feature right on your
own home page), and now you are telling me that it doesn't mean squat? I
think your petulance with me has caused you to lose your mental balance.
I am sorry, but posts like this should be beneath the founder of this society.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 20 2012, 12:35 AM) *
Jim, two, three, five.. .perhaps 20 aircraft...can have the same flight number.

I'll let that bake your noodle for a bit. tongue.gif

(certainly it will throw the duhbunkers for a loop)


Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 20 2012, 01:48 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 20 2012, 01:40 AM) *
But your attitude of "not going to read" a study that should be of such great interest to your society just stuns me.


Why should I bother to read your study, when you haven't bothered to research your "study" with information that has been available since Aug 2006?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm

Not to mention the fact that is it fully analyzed in Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77, release Feb 2007.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 20 2012, 01:51 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 20 2012, 01:43 AM) *
I am sorry, but posts like this should be beneath the founder of this society.


And yet you still cannot determine the difference between a Tail number and Flight number, nor understand information that has been available since 2006, yet you claim to have reviewed.

You have a lot of mistakes to correct in your paper Mr Fetzer. Good luck with that.


Posted by: Dennis Cimino Mar 20 2012, 02:25 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 19 2012, 07:41 PM) *
Mitosis Thanks for the link to the interview with Cimino. He sounds very credible to me. Fetzer advised me yesterday that his only contribution to the piece at hand was the intro. Cimino did the rest, and that's the way it looks too. Fetzer is clearly in the 'no planes at WTC' group, though I think he would rather avoid trying to reconcile the testimony and photographic evidence from ordinary folks (as opposed to MSM) showing at least 1 Boeing at WTC.

Posted by: Dennis Cimino Mar 20 2012, 02:28 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 19 2012, 07:41 PM) *
Mitosis

Thanks for the link to the interview with Cimino. He sounds very credible to me.

Fetzer advised me yesterday that his only contribution to the piece at hand was the intro. Cimino did the rest, and that's the way it looks too.

Fetzer is clearly in the 'no planes at WTC' group, though I think he would rather avoid trying to reconcile the testimony and photographic evidence from ordinary folks (as opposed to MSM) showing at least 1 Boeing at WTC.



I'm not a disinformation shill and I don't think Fetzer is either.

he's not a pilot. and in all honesty, non-aviation people really don't get it. aviation is a very very hard thing for most people to fully comprehend and fully
understand.

only a pilot with a lot of experience can fully grasp a lot of stuff we take for granted...and it's not too very often you'll find a layperson who
even remotely comes close to understanding either the FAR's or the reason why procedures are the way they are.

to some extent we're priveleged men, Rob. we have been there and done that which few could ever do.

when we have good eggs trying to get a clue we have to be more patient with them and not assume them all to be like the neocons who could care less about
aviation or what is going on with aerodynamics. they only understand death meting out and dealings.


Fetzer has accidentally shafted me strictly because I have given him license to do stuff I should have INSISTED THAT I DO, like vetting of every single picture that went into that article.

that I guess is my fault for not stipulating it. it took a long time for him to get Duff to accede to me publishing ANYTHING there at all.

in the comments, Duff goes way out on a line to defend that article. and I think that means a lot. VT could be a good foot in the door for some P4T stuff other than my work. In time, we should plug for international articles too, in high profile places where we had not gone before.


I'm going to bed but I hope that people realize that I am not the fucking enemy. nor is Fetzer. the affiliation is far from perfect but we are trying to get people globally to wake up. We are running out of time.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 20 2012, 09:16 AM

Wow, i see we have a huge jump in hits viewing this thread. I went to check our referral stats to see where it's coming from and surprise, surprise, Bill "Pinch/trebor/streetcar/sweetpea/15 other socks" Paisley continues his daily obsession with our work. He is shooting his wad over at JREF... Apparently he thinks we are in Meltdown mode and that I had a hand in the referenced article. As usual, Pinch prematurely ejects...lol

For our new visitors who wish to learn more about such an obsessed stalker as "Pinch", click here...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21900


What a tool....

Bill, go out.... get some fresh air. Your daily obsession with people who you think are nuts is doing you no good. But hey, thanks for all the fish (hits)... smile.gif

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 20 2012, 10:15 AM

And of course I have consistently drawn the distinction between the flights
and the planes, observing that "Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled
to fly that day, while the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were
not de-registered until 28 September 2005, so how can planes that were not
in the air have crashed or planes that crashed have still been in the air four
years later?" It is false that I have not separated the planes and flight #s.

What this means is that Rob's complaint would only be justifiable if Pilots'
own studies failed to draw that distinction, which of course they do not. So
I really do not understand what the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth is doing in
implying that I did not draw a distinction that I have drawn--repeatedly--in
my published and spoken work during interviews and public lectures? Since
I fault those on the other side for fallacies of equivocation, I cannot not do
that even for Rob, who appears to have wanted to score cheap points here.

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 20 2012, 12:43 AM) *
This is bad, Rob. I cite your own work establishing that Flights 93 and 175
were not where they were supposed to be (which you feature right on your
own home page), and now you are telling me that it doesn't mean squat? I
think your petulance with me has caused you to lose your mental balance.
I am sorry, but posts like this should be beneath the founder of this society.


Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 20 2012, 10:24 AM

Jim,

We already went over this via email when this article was posted to Facebook. Feel free to post that exchange. If you like, I will dig it out and post it myself.

In summary -
Our work does not validate No Plane Theories. We do not endorse No Plane Theory.

I don't know how much more clear I can make it, especially given the email exchange we had on this topic just last week, where i took the time to spell it out for you in answering your questions, the same questions you are asking now, which have already been addressed.

This is why I am being a bit firmer with my tone now. I apologize if it is upsetting you, but it upsets me when people use our work to further their own theories, especially when such people are specifically aware that we do not endorse such theory.

Again, please review the email exchange we had last week on this topic (or was it two weeks ago? I forget). I politely spelled it out for you.

Please post it here.

And as a reminder -




Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 20 2012, 11:24 AM

QUOTE (jimfetzer)
They are "different kettles of fish" in the sense that they were faked using different methods in each case, but they are the same insofar as no Boeing 757s crashed at Shanksville or hit the Pentagon and no 767 hit either tower.


See now that's the subtle wordplay I was referring to in an earlier post.

Taking two operations that involved military manouevres, plotted by on the ground investigators (CIT and Dom DiMaggio), what must have been mindnumbing meticulous dissection of the (bs) alleged FDR data by Pilotsfor911truth and then in the same sentence/breath, tacking on NPT in Manhattan as if they mutually compliment eachother. That's why they are most definitely a "different kettle of fish".

That Flight 175 flew well above its limitations and that ACARS contradicts the OCT doesn't lead to the natural conclusion of NPT.

And yes I have read your thread. I personally believe that the flash seen just before impact may have aided penetration. Couple that with the unknown factors of composition of the aircraft (TWA800 missile/drone which was designed to go through the target rather than explode on impact).

Yes, some of the videos and their anomalies I can't explain, but to build a theory around them that actually becomes a Frankenstein monster in magnitude and scope when somebody who has researched ops such as JFK and CIA modus operandi would know that these fucks like to keep it tight, confuses me.

I'm not going for the "disinfo agent" card that Dennis just pulled (people on this thread just wanted clarification AFAIK), I just want you guys to know that we don't have the luxury that govt loyalists have of being able to change and morph what the evidence that we can verify for ourselves shows. That's why every claim we make must have the "i" dotted and "t" crossed.

I'm in no way saying "you're with us or against us". Nobody can change anybody's mind. But you've just handed them another stick with which to beat this forum and CIT. It's their research. At least have the decency to consult with them before making life harder for them.


FYI Dennis, Duff posted an alleged video of a missile striking the Pentagon not so long ago. Obvious bullshit. A researcher here proved without a doubt that it was fake as hell. I informed and showed Duff the original footage it was taken from. He continued to post it while myself and others had to follow the multiple uploads on YT to let people know it was fake.

Just so you know.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 20 2012, 11:38 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 20 2012, 10:24 AM) *
I don't know how much more clear I can make it, especially given the email exchange we had on this topic just last week, where i took the time to spell it out for you in answering your questions, the same questions you are asking now, which have already been addressed.


I found the email exchange I had with Jim regarding the article in the OP, it was on Feb 29.

Answers to your questions...

FROM:

Pilots For Truth

TO:

James Fetzer

Message flagged
Wednesday, February 29, 2012 3:59 PM

Jim, see my reply to your email regarding Vancouver below.... your questions in bold...

Rob,

OK. I want to quote you. Here are three questions I can quote your answers:

(1) Pilots has established that Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time that
it purportedly crashed in Shanksville. Is it Pilots' position that
Flight 93 was
BOTH over Urbana, IL, AND crashed in Shanksville, PA, AT THE SAME TIME?


Absolutely not. There isn't any evidence which has been provided by govt agencies that proves UAL93 crashed in Shanksville. In fact, all data and information provided by govt agencies conflicts with their story. We want to know why, others are free to speculate.

(2) PIlots has established that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time
it purportedly hit the South Tower. Is it Pilots' position that
Flight 175 was BOTH
over Pittsburgh, PA, AND hit the South Tower AT THE SAME TIME?


According to ACARS data and statements made by UAL Dispatchers, UAL175 was in the vicinity between MDT and PIT, PA during the events taking place in NYC at the South Tower. Since the aircraft observed to hit the South tower was flying at a speed impossible for a standard 767, combined with the numerous targets converging and then diverging from the alleged UA175 target prior to the impact, the govt has not proven that UA175, N612UA, caused the damage to the south tower. I[n] fact, the data provided conflicts with the govt story. For clarity, this does not mean that some other aircraft may [not] have caused the damage considering the aircraft observed to cause the damage has never been positively identified (nor any of the other 3 aircraft allegedly used on 9/11). 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".

(3) Pilots has established that the plane shown in NYC videos was flying faster
than a standard 767. Is it Pilots' position that the plane shown in
the videos was
BOTH a standard 767 AND also not a standard 767 AT THE SAME TIME?


See reply above.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
pilotsfor911truth.org
Full member list at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
Photos here http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 20 2012, 11:59 AM

Why don't you actually read my studies and explain what I have wrong. Pulling this stuff out of the air is irresponsible and beyond ridiculous. If you think that Flight 175 having been airborne over Pittsburgh HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ALLEGED HIT ON THE SOUTH TOWER, something is wrong with your mind-housing group. Obviously, unless you believe that the same plane can be in two places at the same time, whatever was going on in New York City CANNOT HAVE INVOLVED THE SAME PLANE THAT WAS OVER PITTSBURGH AT THE TIME. As I explain in my studies, the term "video fakery" encompasses any use of video to convey a false impression of the events of 9/11. Kindly ACTUALLY READ my work before you dismiss it with the back of your hand. I have heretofore supposed that Pilots was a society of professionals who were serious about 9/11 research.

Now I am discovering that THEY DON'T EVEN BOTHER TO READ STUDIES BEFORE THEY DISMISS THEM. Just go to any of the three articles I have published about all of this, identify what I claim and why I claim it, and the explain what I have wrong. I hope it will not be on the order of the trivia that Rob has identified. I can easily correct the link to "Pandora's Black Box, Part 2" and I have already replaced the diagram of the approach to correspond with more recent work. I have also explained that his use of the term "theory" commits an obvious blunder, because that word can be used in the weak sense of a speculation, guess or rumor, but there is the stronger sense of an empirically testable explanatory hypothesis. Neither of us wants to deal with mere rumors or speculation. So if I or my co-authors have something wrong, SHOW WHAT WE HAVE WRONG AND WHY. OK?

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 20 2012, 10:24 AM) *
See now that's the subtle wordplay I was referring to in an earlier post.

Taking two operations that involved military manouevres, plotted by on the ground investigators (CIT and Dom DiMaggio), what must have been mindnumbing meticulous dissection of the (bs) alleged FDR data by Pilotsfor911truth and then in the same sentence/breath, tacking on NPT in Manhattan as if they mutually compliment eachother. That's why they are most definitely a "different kettle of fish".

That Flight 175 flew well above its limitations and that ACARS contradicts the OCT doesn't lead to the natural conclusion of NPT.

And yes I have read your thread. I personally believe that the flash seen just before impact may have aided penetration. Couple that with the unknown factors of composition of the aircraft (TWA800 missile/drone which was designed to go through the target rather than explode on impact).

Yes, some of the videos and their anomalies I can't explain, but to build a theory around them that actually becomes a Frankenstein monster in magnitude and scope when somebody who has researched ops such as JFK and CIA modus operandi would know that these fucks like to keep it tight, confuses me.

I'm not going for the "disinfo agent" card that Dennis just pulled (people on this thread just wanted clarification AFAIK), I just want you guys to know that we don't have the luxury that govt loyalists have of being able to change and morph what the evidence that we can verify for ourselves shows. That's why every claim we make must have the "i" dotted and "t" crossed.

I'm in no way saying "you're with us or against us". Nobody can change anybody's mind. But you've just handed them another stick with which to beat this forum and CIT. It's their research. At least have the decency to consult with them before making life harder for them.


FYI Dennis, Duff posted an alleged video of a missile striking the Pentagon not so long ago. Obvious bullshit. A researcher here proved without a doubt that it was fake as hell. I informed and showed Duff the original footage it was taken from. He continued to post it while myself and others had to follow the multiple uploads on YT to let people know it was fake.

Just so you know.


Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 20 2012, 12:59 PM

That you label the "mistaken" official flight path for "77" as "trivia" speaks volumes jim. It's defined within feet through the alleged directional damage from lightpoles 1 and 2 through to C Ring. It's defined through aerodynamics that it can't even begin to cause that damage from NOC. Nor over the Navy Annex.

Feet and inches! Hardly trivia.

I don't care about NPT (been there, done that, wised up) and I did read your pieces. You obviously skimmed over my post(s). You know exactly what I take issue with.

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 20 2012, 01:39 PM

guys, guys, we are on the same side here, ok?

Posted by: SanderO Mar 20 2012, 08:09 PM

Question about a plane's wing hitting light poles....

I would think that a large jet which somehow manages to fly low enough and fast enough to have its wing run into a series of light poles would knock the poles down not have the poles knock the wing off. The attachment of the wing is the strongest part of the plane and its more likely that the pole would damage the wing not rip it off. Is that true? If a pole ripped off the wing... the remaining ones in that line would neither rip off the wing as the first one did that. Or if the wing knocked the first pole down, it's likely to knock down the next few. No?

I am not arguing for a south pass... just curious about what the encounter of a wing and a row of light poles would do... to the poles and to the wing.

Posted by: mrmitosis Mar 20 2012, 10:11 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 18 2012, 09:56 AM) *
...I'd like to see where he actually mentions the "no planes" theory?

I've read the link

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/13/911-the-official-account-of-the-pentagon-attack-is-a-fantasy/

And don't see it mentioned anywhere.


I’m with Slice on this.

After scanning the article, paragraph by paragraph, I find nothing to convince me that Dennis subscribes to NPT.

Of course, Fetzer has made a transparent and opportunistic attempt to use the article to bolster support for his own opinions…inviting people to explain why “we are wrong” (…who’s “we”?), and linking to previous articles which were primarily concerned with NPT and video fakery.

Admittedly, on a superficial level, there will be those who assume that just because Fetzer authored the pre-amble to Cimino’s 10,000 word article, that they both must therefore share a similar perspective on NPT. But shouldn’t we be focusing more on the content found within the article itself before arriving at that conclusion?

Veterans Today has a reputation by now for endorsing radical interpretations of the evidence relating to 9/11 - should that stop Dennis from publishing something alongside Fetzer without compromising his own integrity or credibility?

Incidentally, Jim manages to restrain himself from mentioning NPT, or anything else exotic, in his introduction – why not, if this is one of the article’s core arguments? Why does he choose to wait for a discussion like this to raise NPT? Was he afraid that Dennis might withdraw his approval from the article before its date of publication?

Also, none of the debunkers I’ve encountered over the past week have used NPT as cheap ammunition against Dennis or his article. In my experience, shills will always pounce on any chance to kookify Truthers by maligning them with wacky theories they’ve never actually endorsed themselves. This hasn't happened, so why should people who might otherwise be expected to support Dennis insist on building a strawman on his behalf? It doesn’t make any sense to me.

Woody Box argues that the “screenshot of the BTS database with the missing Fl77 data is a pretty subtle way to mention NPT.” We’ve since learned that none of the links, images or footage referenced in the article were chosen or approved by Dennis. So, how much further should we be reading between the lines?

I wish Dennis would just make a statement to clarify his position.

Dennis?

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 21 2012, 01:05 AM

In case anyone believes that Pilots determination that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was supposed to have been effortlessly entering the South Tower, was a turning point for me, I had reached that conclusion already in "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", published in OpEdNews in 2008. What Pilots confirmed was simply another piece of the puzzle, not the proof some kind of video fakery had taken place in New York. Likewise, my earlier piece, "What didn't happen at the Pentagon", was published on rense.com and my blog back in 2010. Indeed, I have tracked down an earlier version that appeared on "The Daily Paul" back on 9 June 2009, http://www.dailypaul.com/95834/what-didn-t-happen-at-the-pentagon, So this suggestion that I was "piggybacking" on Dennis is simply absurd. And the idea that I was trading on Pilots late discover that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh was the basis for my arguments about no planes and video fakery is equally absurd. I have been publishing about these subjects for years, where some of the most important studies related to the question are included in the references below.

Morgan Reynolds had to beat up on me for at least 18 months before I could even take seriously the very idea that no Boeings had hit either of the Twin Towers until I realized that video fakery was compatible with real planes, since the videos might have been altered to conceal something about the planes or their interaction with the buildings. At that point, I began to interview a series of students of 9/11 who had done serious research on this subject. I actually interviewed at least fifteen (15) of them, including going through their web sited and multiple videos (over and over) before I became convinced that fakery had to have taken place by Joe Keith's argument that, not only is the entry into the South Tower in violation of Newton's laws, but that, by a frame-by-frame advance, he and others had established that the "plane" had passed through its complete length into the tower in the same number of frames that it had passes through its own length in air--and that this was the case for both the Hezaranhi and Evan Fairbanks's videos. After that, I realized that anyone who denied something was wrong did not know the evidence.

Why mrmitosis would suggest "Of course, Fetzer has made a transparent and opportunistic attempt to use the article to bolster support for his own opinions…inviting people to explain why “we are wrong” (…who’s “we”?), and linking to previous articles which were primarily concerned with NPT and video fakery", on the one hand, and also remark, "Incidentally, Jim manages to restrain himself from mentioning NPT, or anything else exotic, in his introduction – why not, if this is one of the article’s core arguments? Why does he choose to wait for a discussion like this to raise NPT?" is simply ignorant. I had ALREADY PUBLISHED several articles about NPT, including "9/11: Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'" on 20 February 2012, as well as the separate article about "The 9/11 Passenger Paradox" (with Dean Harwell) on 15 March 2012. Dennis and I had discussed them both and I thought it would be valuable to have someone of his background and experience address the Pentagon. So we put it together.

ON WHAT HAPPENED AT THE PENTAGON:

"What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-didnt-happen-at-pentagon.html

"Pandora's Black Box, Chapter 2"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580#

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to
American77 http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Dennis-Cimino-AA77-FDR.html

"Inside Job: Seven Questions about 9/11"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/05/inside-job-seven-questions-about-911/

“9/11: The official account of the Pentagon attach is a fantasy” (with Dennis Cimino)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/13/911-the-official-account-of-the-pentagon-attack-is-a-fantasy/

ON PLANES OR NO PLANES:

Elias Davidsson, "There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime
of 9/11" http://www.opednews.com/articles/There-is-no-evidence-that-by-Elias-Davidsson-100811-366.html

David Ray Griffin, "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16924

Leslie Raphael, "Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged"
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm

"New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Proof-of-Video-Fakery--by-Jim-Fetzer-080729-132.html

"9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed

"Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/11/inside-job-more-proof-of-911-duplicity/

"9/11: An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about 'Absurdities'"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/03/911-an-open-letter-to-anthony-lawson-about-absurdities/

Killtown on Shanksville,
http://www.nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-killtown%202010%20Oct.mp3

Pilots for 9/11 Truth, “ACARS CONFIRMED – 9/11 Aircraft Airborne Long After Crash” (Flight 175),
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LONG-AFTER-CRASH.html

Pilots for 9/11 Truth, “United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash – According to ATC/Radar”
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/united-93-still-airborne.html

“9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/

“The 9/11 Passenger Paradox: What happened to Flight 93?” (with Dean Hartwell)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/15/the-911-passenger-paradox-what-happened-to-flight-93/

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 21 2012, 01:14 AM

Yes, Rob sent me this, which is a fine statement from Pilots. But some of us are using the evidence that Pilots and others have discovered to reconstruct what did and did not happen on 9/11. That is the purpose of my publications on these subjects, where I have given some references in my response to mrmitosis, who appears to be only one of those posting here would seems to be oblivious not only of my previous research on planes/no planes, video fakery and the Pentagon, but that of numerous others.

What I do not understand is why Pilots and Rob in particular should adopt such a condescending attitude toward those, like me, who are doing what we can to put the big picture together. As an illustration, I would encourage any of you to check out the http://www.911vancouverhearings.com which will be held there from 15-17 June this year in an attempt to confront some of the most contentious issues dividing the 9/11 community in an effort to bridge the gap and bring this community closer together.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 20 2012, 10:38 AM) *
I found the email exchange I had with Jim regarding the article in the OP, it was on Feb 29.

Answers to your questions...

FROM:

Pilots For Truth

TO:

James Fetzer

Message flagged
Wednesday, February 29, 2012 3:59 PM

Jim, see my reply to your email regarding Vancouver below.... your questions in bold...

Rob,

OK. I want to quote you. Here are three questions I can quote your answers:

(1) Pilots has established that Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time that
it purportedly crashed in Shanksville. Is it Pilots' position that
Flight 93 was
BOTH over Urbana, IL, AND crashed in Shanksville, PA, AT THE SAME TIME?


Absolutely not. There isn't any evidence which has been provided by govt agencies that proves UAL93 crashed in Shanksville. In fact, all data and information provided by govt agencies conflicts with their story. We want to know why, others are free to speculate.

(2) PIlots has established that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time
it purportedly hit the South Tower. Is it Pilots' position that
Flight 175 was BOTH
over Pittsburgh, PA, AND hit the South Tower AT THE SAME TIME?


According to ACARS data and statements made by UAL Dispatchers, UAL175 was in the vicinity between MDT and PIT, PA during the events taking place in NYC at the South Tower. Since the aircraft observed to hit the South tower was flying at a speed impossible for a standard 767, combined with the numerous targets converging and then diverging from the alleged UA175 target prior to the impact, the govt has not proven that UA175, N612UA, caused the damage to the south tower. I[n] fact, the data provided conflicts with the govt story. For clarity, this does not mean that some other aircraft may [not] have caused the damage considering the aircraft observed to cause the damage has never been positively identified (nor any of the other 3 aircraft allegedly used on 9/11). 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".

(3) Pilots has established that the plane shown in NYC videos was flying faster
than a standard 767. Is it Pilots' position that the plane shown in
the videos was
BOTH a standard 767 AND also not a standard 767 AT THE SAME TIME?


See reply above.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
pilotsfor911truth.org
Full member list at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
Photos here http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots


Posted by: jfetzer Mar 21 2012, 01:19 AM

While it was good of Rob to post this on behalf of Dennis, he has informed me that his submission was far longer and more detailed. Given that this has become a bone of contention, I am just the least bit surprised and disappointed that Rob had not posted it in its entirety. I would ask that he at least send me a copy of the original submission. And while I am at it, when he asserts that "Pilots does not endorse NPT", what does he think that NPT entails? I am curious to know his conception, since it may be that some of our differences are based upon false impressions of what this is all about. I invite Rob's response to both.

QUOTE (Dennis Cimino @ Mar 20 2012, 01:28 AM) *
I'm not a disinformation shill and I don't think Fetzer is either.

he's not a pilot. and in all honesty, non-aviation people really don't get it. aviation is a very very hard thing for most people to fully comprehend and fully
understand.

only a pilot with a lot of experience can fully grasp a lot of stuff we take for granted...and it's not too very often you'll find a layperson who
even remotely comes close to understanding either the FAR's or the reason why procedures are the way they are.

to some extent we're priveleged men, Rob. we have been there and done that which few could ever do.

when we have good eggs trying to get a clue we have to be more patient with them and not assume them all to be like the neocons who could care less about
aviation or what is going on with aerodynamics. they only understand death meting out and dealings.


Fetzer has accidentally shafted me strictly because I have given him license to do stuff I should have INSISTED THAT I DO, like vetting of every single picture that went into that article.

that I guess is my fault for not stipulating it. it took a long time for him to get Duff to accede to me publishing ANYTHING there at all.

in the comments, Duff goes way out on a line to defend that article. and I think that means a lot. VT could be a good foot in the door for some P4T stuff other than my work. In time, we should plug for international articles too, in high profile places where we had not gone before.


I'm going to bed but I hope that people realize that I am not the fucking enemy. nor is Fetzer. the affiliation is far from perfect but we are trying to get people globally to wake up. We are running out of time.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 21 2012, 01:25 AM


SanderO, you are joking, right? You don't know Newton's third law? The impact of a plane moving 500 mph with a stationary lamppost would be the same as that of a lamppost moving 500 mph hitting a stationary plane. We know what happens when a plane in flight impacts with a tiny bird weighing only a few ounces. It would have ripped the wing off, ignited the fuel, caused it to pivot violently and break off its tail, while done immense damage to the lawn. But none of that happened. Think about it.


QUOTE (SanderO @ Mar 20 2012, 07:09 PM) *
Question about a plane's wing hitting light poles....

I would think that a large jet which somehow manages to fly low enough and fast enough to have its wing run into a series of light poles would knock the poles down not have the poles knock the wing off. The attachment of the wing is the strongest part of the plane and its more likely that the pole would damage the wing not rip it off. Is that true? If a pole ripped off the wing... the remaining ones in that line would neither rip off the wing as the first one did that. Or if the wing knocked the first pole down, it's likely to knock down the next few. No?

I am not arguing for a south pass... just curious about what the encounter of a wing and a row of light poles would do... to the poles and to the wing.


Posted by: mrmitosis Mar 21 2012, 02:01 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 12:05 AM) *
Why mrmitosis would suggest "Of course, Fetzer has made a transparent and opportunistic attempt to use the article to bolster support for his own opinions…inviting people to explain why “we are wrong” (…who’s “we”?), and linking to previous articles which were primarily concerned with NPT and video fakery", on the one hand, and also remark, "Incidentally, Jim manages to restrain himself from mentioning NPT, or anything else exotic, in his introduction – why not, if this is one of the article’s core arguments? Why does he choose to wait for a discussion like this to raise NPT?" is simply ignorant.


I framed my questions exactly how I intended to ask them, Mr Fetzer.

I don’t need to be intimately familiar with your prior research to be curious as to whether or not Dennis agrees with your prior research. Of course, it is my suspicion at this point that he does not necessarily share your opinions regarding faked planes or video. As I explained, there is a vast chasm between (i) questioning the physical evidence relating to the planes and (ii) questioning the physical existence of the planes.

As for video fakery, this can hardly be treated as a pivotal issue, when there isn’t any video evidence of AA77 available to discuss or evaluate.

I stand correctable on any of the above, but until Dennis chooses to step forward with a definitive statement, I think I’m within my rights to raise questions about your involvement in Cimino’s article...before, during and after it appeared at Veterans Today. The way you’ve chosen to participate in the discussion - both pre- and post-publication - just seems to benefit your agenda a little too conveniently.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 21 2012, 04:19 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 01:19 AM) *
While it was good of Rob to post this on behalf of Dennis, he has informed me that his submission was far longer and more detailed. Given that this has become a bone of contention, I am just the least bit surprised and disappointed that Rob had not posted it in its entirety. I would ask that he at least send me a copy of the original submission.



http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/Dennis_Email1.jpg. And I expect a retraction of the above veiled accusation when you return. Jim, you have done nothing here but attempt more divide within the so-called "movement", while providing ammunition for dishonest duhbunkers and http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21115&view=findpost&p=10803766.

Why didn't you ask Dennis for the original before making the above accusations?

Keep in mind, Dennis is free to post here, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804175, (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804174 in fact) but apparently was having difficulty remembering how to use the Forum interface so he sent me the body via email asking me to publish it for him. It was posted in it's entirety with the exception of the first sentence in which my quick highlight cut off the first few words, "anyway, I hope that the guys understand that...". If you feel including those 8 words make the email "far longer and more detailed", thereby justifying your disappointment, then I guess you are entitled to your opinion. If you find those 8 words trivial, I expect a retraction. I will no longer copy/paste his emails for him. If he has something to say on this forum, he can post it himself. The interface isn't that difficult to figure out.

Jim, you are free to explore all the theories you wish. We do not endorse NPT. Please review the interview I did with John Lear http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804179. If you use our work in an attempt to support your theories, please inform your readers that Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not endorse NPT, or do not use our work at all in your articles.

Thank you.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 21 2012, 05:13 AM

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Mar 21 2012, 02:01 AM) *
I framed my questions exactly how I intended to ask them, Mr Fetzer.

I don’t need to be intimately familiar with your prior research to be curious as to whether or not Dennis agrees with your prior research. Of course, it is my suspicion at this point that he does not necessarily share your opinions regarding faked planes or video. As I explained, there is a vast chasm between (i) questioning the physical evidence relating to the planes and (ii) questioning the physical existence of the planes.

As for video fakery, this can hardly be treated as a pivotal issue, when there isn’t any video evidence of AA77 available to discuss or evaluate.

I stand correctable on any of the above, but until Dennis chooses to step forward with a definitive statement, I think I’m within my rights to raise questions about your involvement in Cimino’s article...before, during and after it appeared at Veterans Today. The way you’ve chosen to participate in the discussion - both pre- and post-publication - just seems to benefit your agenda a little too conveniently.



Since Jim felt the need to share with others what Dennis allegedly "informed" him, I will share mine.

Dennis does not endorse the NPT.

He can come here and elaborate if he wishes.

Posted by: Dennis Cimino Mar 21 2012, 06:52 AM

Let me tell you a little story about a P-3 that was flat hatting at 250 knots down about twenty feet above the water, Sander. The pilot was breaking NATOPS rules by being down there going so fast, and then he had the misfortune of hitting a seagull with the starboard wing. The bird embedded into the wing seven feet deep and ruptured the fuel tank and grounded the plane for over a month. The mass of the seagull was significantly less than any of those poles.

I think it's rather disingenuous to state that the wing is so strong that the kind of damage I stated in my article is unrealistic. I'm not attacking you, I'm stating a fact. When a 'seagull' gets the equivalent mass of an aluminum lamp pole, then we'll discuss the further destruction of the wing. Now, I might want to tell you that this Lockheed airplane is mighty sturdy and is not made out of fiberglass or spruce. The bird nearly came out thru the flap well on this machine. Still want to debate the relative mass of the pole strikes and the ramifications of that? Be my guest. The story I just cited is true. It's ludicrous to state that a plane moving at this speed would NOT have ruptured wing fuel tanks from those hits.

QUOTE (SanderO @ Mar 21 2012, 01:09 AM) *
Question about a plane's wing hitting light poles....

I would think that a large jet which somehow manages to fly low enough and fast enough to have its wing run into a series of light poles would knock the poles down not have the poles knock the wing off. The attachment of the wing is the strongest part of the plane and its more likely that the pole would damage the wing not rip it off. Is that true? If a pole ripped off the wing... the remaining ones in that line would neither rip off the wing as the first one did that. Or if the wing knocked the first pole down, it's likely to knock down the next few. No?

I am not arguing for a south pass... just curious about what the encounter of a wing and a row of light poles would do... to the poles and to the wing.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 21 2012, 10:07 AM

Rob has send me a copy of what he received from Dennis and it is the same as what he posted here. I do not know why Dennis told me that it had been "far longer and more detailed". I will certainly ask him about this and I extend my apology to Rob for a mistaken observation on my part. I appreciate that he sent this to me and I will see if I can find out from Dennis more about what happened.

My best guess would be that Dennis wrote a longer and more detailed version but, before he submitted it to Rob, revised and shortened it. He has been dealing with a lot of emails and exchanges. I may be wrong, but that is my best guess. I certainly have no reason to doubt his or Rob's integrity, but it appears that Rob was right and I was wrong. In any case, I regret the misunderstanding.

I have asked Rob to tell me what he takes to be "NPT". The simplest to define it would be that none of the planes the government has claimed to have crashed on 9/11 crashed on 9/11, but each case was done differently. No 757 crashed in Shanksville. A 757 appears to have flown toward the Pentagon but then swooped over it at the same time that explosions were set of at the building.

The New York cases are the fascinating ones. As I illustrate in "Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity" and in "9/11: Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'", the plane at the North Tower appears to have been simulated by an arrangement of four UAVs, while the "plane" that enters the South Tower is traveling at an impossible speed for a standard 767 and enters the building in violation of Newton's laws.

It also passes through its own length into the tower in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. Unless that massive 500,000-ton building posed no more resistance than air, we are witnessing impossible events. The "plane" also has no strobe lights, casts no shadow, and has a wing that disappears in some of the videos and then reappears, as the last of the four videos displays.

So we have something that is supposed to be a real plane but was performing feats no real plane could perform. I discuss three theories about how this was done, including CGIs and video fakery. But those would only have affected images that were broadcast after the event. If we take witness reports seriously, then the most plausible hypothesis seems to be that this was a sophisticated hologram.

Those who support the hologram hypothesis include John Lear and Steffan Grossman, who has a book about the violations of Newton's laws involved here. I also interviewed Stephen Brown, who has just completely a course on holography at Cambridge on "The Real Deal", who confirmed that it was possible to project such an image with current technology. I know that this theory sounds like a stretch.

But as Sherlock Holmes reminds us, "When you have eliminated the impossible, what ever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth". I spent 35 years offering courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning. If the witness reports are discounted, then we might be dealing with false memory syndrome. But I have interviewed some whom I have found to be completely believable.

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 12:19 AM) *
While it was good of Rob to post this on behalf of Dennis, he has informed me that his submission was far longer and more detailed. Given that this has become a bone of contention, I am just the least bit surprised and disappointed that Rob had not posted it in its entirety. I would ask that he at least send me a copy of the original submission. And while I am at it, when he asserts that "Pilots does not endorse NPT", what does he think that NPT entails? I am curious to know his conception, since it may be that some of our differences are based upon false impressions of what this is all about. I invite Rob's response to both.


Posted by: jfetzer Mar 21 2012, 10:18 AM

The wrong link was (what we used to call) "a mistake". Thanks
for catching it. Here is the correct link to the Pentagon article:

"9/11: The official account of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/13/911-the-official-account-of-the-pentagon-attack-is-a-fantasy/


QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 17 2012, 09:53 PM) *
"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.

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?

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 21 2012, 10:26 AM

Actually, there is a lot of evidence of Israeli involvement. Christopher Bollyn has an on-line book about it. Alan Sabrosky has made many presentations and published many articles about it. Web sites such as rediscover911.com discuss it extensively.

I have several articles that discuss it, including "9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda", "Is 9/11 research 'anti-Semitic'?", and "The Sciene and Politics of 9/11: The Toronto Hearings". Just google "The Dancing Israelis" for one indication that is rather widely known.

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 18 2012, 09:56 AM) *
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/2012/03/13/911-the-official-account-of-the-pentagon-attack-is-a-fantasy/

And don't see it mentioned anywhere.


Posted by: jfetzer Mar 21 2012, 10:30 AM

While I have replied to this elsewhere, Dennis said he was going to have ask for a copy back from you (for whatever reason), so I simply moved the ball forward. Apparently, I was misinformed about it, which I have addressed in an earlier post. Sorry!

As for NPT, I can't imagine why Pilots WOULD NOT endorse no plane theory, at this point in time, unless Pilots either (1) does not know what the theory entails or (2) does not appreciate the depth and breath of the evidence that supports it. Check it out.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 21 2012, 03:19 AM) *
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/Dennis_Email1.jpg. And I expect a retraction of the above veiled accusation when you return. Jim, you have done nothing here but attempt more divide within the so-called "movement", while providing ammunition for dishonest duhbunkers and http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21115&view=findpost&p=10803766.

Why didn't you ask Dennis for the original before making the above accusations?

Keep in mind, Dennis is free to post here, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804175, (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804174 in fact) but apparently was having difficulty remembering how to use the Forum interface so he sent me the body via email asking me to publish it for him. It was posted in it's entirety with the exception of the first sentence in which my quick highlight cut off the first few words, "anyway, I hope that the guys understand that...". If you feel including those 8 words make the email "far longer and more detailed", thereby justifying your disappointment, then I guess you are entitled to your opinion. If you find those 8 words trivial, I expect a retraction. I will no longer copy/paste his emails for him. If he has something to say on this forum, he can post it himself. The interface isn't that difficult to figure out.

Jim, you are free to explore all the theories you wish. We do not endorse NPT. Please review the interview I did with John Lear http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804179. If you use our work in an attempt to support your theories, please inform your readers that Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not endorse NPT, or do not use our work at all in your articles.

Thank you.


Posted by: jfetzer Mar 21 2012, 10:43 AM

I do not believe that NPT is cited or discussed in "The official account of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy". Am I mistaken? I would observe, however, that if no Boeing hit the Pentagon, even if one flew over it, that obviously supports "no planes" theory.

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Mar 17 2012, 10:50 PM) *
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?


Posted by: jfetzer Mar 21 2012, 10:46 AM

Since there are four parts to NPT--that no Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville, that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, that no Boeing 767 hit the North Tower, and that no Boeing 767 hit the South Tower--if he believes that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, then he supports at least that part of NPT. And if he has studied the evidence for the rest of NPT, then he SHOULD also support all of it--which is also true for you, Rob, and the rest of Pilots. If you actually study the evidence, you will understand why you SHOULD.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 21 2012, 04:13 AM) *
Since Jim felt the need to share with others what Dennis allegedly "informed" him, I will share mine.

Dennis does not endorse the NPT.

He can come here and elaborate if he wishes.


Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 21 2012, 10:48 AM

Thank you for your apology Jim... accepted.

As for the reason we do not endorse NPT as an organization (or any other theory for that matter), it is explained in our mission statement on the top of our http://pilotsfor911truth.org. It has been there since the organization was founded in Aug 2006.

We have many differing opinions within our organization, but where we stand united is under our mission statement.

And to be clear, when i reference NPT, i reference NPT at the WTC considering the amount of video and witness statements, some of which who i know personally and watched aircraft hit the WTC while sitting on the taxiways at JFK and EWR waiting to depart. One of such witnesses is listed as a core member of P4T.

I am not an expert to examine "Video fakery", however it has been discussed at length in this section of our forum. I am not convinced, nor do I feel the need to spend more of my time researching a topic in which i do not have the expertise.... a topic which is more controversial than the topics I do have expertise.

In short, I'm not going to waste my time when my time is better spent researching topics I understand, can debate, and can be called as an Expert Witness.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 21 2012, 10:57 AM

Well, if no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, that supports the part of NPT that asserts "No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon". Some of Pilots discoveries, such as that the plane seen in the South Tower video was traveling at an impossible speed for a standard 767 and that Flights 93 and 175 were in the air but far removed from their alleged "crash sites" obviously also support parts of NPT.

Here's a sample of my high regard for Pilots(in response to a criticism posted by one Trowbridge Ford about "Planes/No Planes":

Jim Fetzer
February 24, 2012 - 8:10 am(Edit)
Trowbridge, as usual, does not know what he is talking about. On the Pentagon, for example, see “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon”, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-didnt-happen-at-pentagon.html On the “black box data”, see “Pandora’s Black Box”, http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=db5_1251546799, another in a series of brilliant studies by Pilots for 9/11 Truth. This guy may be the world’s most gullible person, outstanding of its kind.

I am simply integrating evidence that Pilots has established into the broader matrix of evidence that supports no planes theory. That, of course, is perfectly appropriate. I have no desire to impose my views upon anyone, much less Pilots, but it does seem to me that if you and others were to ACTUALLY STUDY THE EVIDENCE I HAVE PRESENTED, you just might change your minds.

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 18 2012, 12:34 PM) *
From your link Jim.









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.


Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 21 2012, 11:00 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 10:57 AM) *
Well, if no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, that supports the part of NPT that asserts "No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon".



http://pilotsfor911truth.org/article_corrections.html

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 21 2012, 11:06 AM

Well, thanks. But your post displays a misunderstanding of the theory of video fakery, which encompasses any use of video to convey a false or misleading impression of (in this case) what happened on 9/11. That could include altering the videos as they were being broadcast or having used something that looked like a plane but was not a real plane. If you were to read what I have published, you would see that, in the case of the North and the South Tower hits, we appear to be dealing with simulations.

See "Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity" or "9/11: Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'", which makes this entirely clear. I think you have prejudged the issue, just as I did before I began to seriously study it. We have witnesses, such as those whom you cite, who saw something they took to be a plane. But while it LOOKED LIKE A PLANE, it was performing feats that NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM. We have to deal with something that looked like a real plane but was not a real plane. That's the deal.

I think this is a nice example of drawing a premature conclusion and then refusing to consider the evidence. This is why I asked you what you take NPT to come to. Obviously, I was right to suspect that you did not understand what we are up against. I am of course in complete agreement that, given the witness reports, we are dealing with something they reported as "a plane". But the evidence demonstrates--conclusively, in my opinion--that IT CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE BUT WAS A SIMULATION.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 21 2012, 09:48 AM) *
Thank you for your apology Jim... accepted.

As for the reason we do not endorse NPT as an organization (or any other theory for that matter), it is explained in our mission statement on the top of our http://pilotsfor911truth.org. It has been there since the organization was founded in Aug 2006.

We have many differing opinions within our organization, but where we stand united is under our mission statement.

And to be clear, when i reference NPT, i reference NPT at the WTC considering the amount of video and witness statements, some of which who i know personally and watched aircraft hit the WTC while sitting on the taxiways at JFK and EWR. One of such witnesses is a core member of P4T.

I am not an expert to examine "Video fakery", however it has been discussed at length in this section of our forum. I am not convinced, nor do I feel the need to spend more of my time researching a topic in which i do not have the expertise.... a topic which is more controversial than the topics I do have expertise.

In short, I'm not going to waste my time when my time is better spent researching topics I understand, can debate, and can be called as an Expert Witness.


Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 21 2012, 11:11 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 11:06 AM) *
But your post displays a misunderstanding of the theory of video fakery, which encompasses any use of video to convey a false or misleading impression of (in this case) what happened on 9/11. That could include altering the videos as they were being broadcast or having used something that looked like a plane but was not a real plane. If you were to read what I have published, you would see that, in the case of the North and the South Tower hits, we appear to be dealing with simulations.,



As i said Jim, Video Fakery was discussed at length in this section of the forum. If you would search and read those exchanges, and perhaps provide your rebuttals, i may find some time to review it.. .especially if i can find more than 24 hours in a day in which I am researching and debating topics in which I am an expert.


Again, I am not convinced by Video Fakery, but as an amateur Film producer myself, i do know how easy it is to manipulate video, especially with alpha channels and chroma-keying. Of course, this is not done live on multiple stations and multiple private cameras.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 21 2012, 11:13 AM

Another nice example of misunderstanding NPT. It has nothing to do with video fakery per se, which would be any use of videos to convey false or misleading impressions of the events of 9/11. It has to do with the plane. NPT holds that no Boeings crashed at any of the alleged sites--not in Shanksville, not at the Pentagon, not into the North Tower and, most surprisingly, not into the South Tower. So the absence of videos in Shaniksville and at the Pentagon--which exist, of course, but have not been released (except for three that show no more than that single frame originally labeled "plane"--but where video fakery was used in New York, where evidence shows that simulations of planes (four UAVs in the case of the North Tower, what appears to have been a sophisticated hologram in the case of the South) were taken by witnesses to be real planes, even though they were performing feats that no real planes could perform. I recommend you go back and reconsider my studies, which you have not understood.

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Mar 21 2012, 01:01 AM) *
I framed my questions exactly how I intended to ask them, Mr Fetzer.

I don’t need to be intimately familiar with your prior research to be curious as to whether or not Dennis agrees with your prior research. Of course, it is my suspicion at this point that he does not necessarily share your opinions regarding faked planes or video. As I explained, there is a vast chasm between (i) questioning the physical evidence relating to the planes and (ii) questioning the physical existence of the planes.

As for video fakery, this can hardly be treated as a pivotal issue, when there isn’t any video evidence of AA77 available to discuss or evaluate.

I stand correctable on any of the above, but until Dennis chooses to step forward with a definitive statement, I think I’m within my rights to raise questions about your involvement in Cimino’s article...before, during and after it appeared at Veterans Today. The way you’ve chosen to participate in the discussion - both pre- and post-publication - just seems to benefit your agenda a little too conveniently.


Posted by: jfetzer Mar 21 2012, 11:19 AM

No, Rob. I am talking about FAKE PLANES, not FAKE VIDEO. Give me a break. I have explained this many times now. What witnesses reported seeing hit the South Tower CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE, BECAUSE IT WAS PERFORMING FEATS THAT NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM. It was traveling at an impossible speed (for a standard 767), but it also entered the building in violation of Newton's laws (which no real plane could do) and passes through its own length into this massive steel-and-concrete building the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air (which is also physically impossible). What we have here is the sophisticated simulation of a plane, not a real plane. I think you need to recalibrate your reasoning about NPT.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 21 2012, 10:11 AM) *
As i said Jim, Video Fakery was discussed at length in this section of the forum. If you would search and read those exchanges, and perhaps provide your rebuttals, i may find some time to review it.. .especially if i can find more than 24 hours in a day in which I am researching and debating topics in which I am an expert.

Again, I am not convinced by Video Fakery, but as an amateur Film producer myself, i do know how easy it is to manipulate video, especially with alpha channels and chroma-keying. Of course, this is not done live on multiple stations and multiple private cameras.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 21 2012, 11:24 AM

Well, maybe Pilots still thinks its possible, but I do not believe Dennis is of that opinion. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 21 2012, 10:00 AM) *
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/article_corrections.html


Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 21 2012, 11:24 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 11:19 AM) *
No, Rob. I am talking about FAKE PLANES, not FAKE VIDEO. Give me a break. I have explained this many times now. What witnesses reported seeing hit the South Tower CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE, BECAUSE IT WAS PERFORMING FEATS THAT NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM.


No Jim, you were talking about Video Fakery. Go up and http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804211...

However, I disagree with "CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE, BECAUSE IT WAS PERFORMING FEATS THAT NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM"... and I have explained this to you in http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804182.


And please calm down Jim. There is no need to shout.

Thanks.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 21 2012, 11:26 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 11:24 AM) *
Well, maybe Pilots still thinks its possible, but I do not believe Dennis is of that opinion. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.



Again Jim, we have many differing opinions within our organization. Where we stand united is under our Mission Statement.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 21 2012, 12:25 PM

Rob,

What you have explained is that you know some of the witnesses who reported seeing "a plane" and that you believe them. What you have not explained is how "a plane" could be a real plane and perform feats that no real plane could perform. That is what I have been pursuing. And you seem obtuse to my definition of "video fakery", which is any use of videos to convey a false impression of the events of 9/11, in this case, including the hits on the North Tower and the South.

I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge that you have misunderstood me and presumed--simply took for granted--that "video fakery" mean altering the videos and did not include faking the planes. I understand that you might have committed a misunderstanding like that, but now that I have explained in--many times, right here on this forum--surely you can broaden your understanding to encompass the argument I am making rather than an interpretation you have imposed upon me.

And it should come as no surprise that someone who's mind is made up--even though it is based upon a gross misunderstanding about the relationship between "the plane", video fakery, and NPT--should discount and disregard studies by someone like me, whom you have apparently taken to be at least mildly demented. Since no real plane could have performed the feats shown in the videos of the South Tower hit, those who fall into that category would appear to be instead those who ignore the evidence.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 21 2012, 10:24 AM) *
No Jim, you were talking about Video Fakery. Go up and http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804211...

However, I disagree with "CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE, BECAUSE IT WAS PERFORMING FEATS THAT NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM"... and I have explained this to you in http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804182.


And please calm down Jim. There is no need to shout.

Thanks.


Posted by: jfetzer Mar 21 2012, 12:29 PM

The use of CAPS was for emphasis. Change the to bold. But you are being unusually coy about not responding to my arguments but instead looking for passages you can criticize. So what? I have explained NPT here many times now. There is no excuse for you to continue to misrepresent it. If I am wrong, then explain what I have said, why I have said it, and what I have wrong.

The evidence supporting NPT is abundant and compelling. I would have thought that you, as the head of Pilots, would at least attempt to study and understand positions involving aircraft before you reject them. That is not only anti-intellectual but, if I may say so, blatantly irresponsible and unprofessional for you as the leader of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. We should be working together.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 21 2012, 10:24 AM) *
No Jim, you were talking about Video Fakery. Go up and http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804211...

However, I disagree with "CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE, BECAUSE IT WAS PERFORMING FEATS THAT NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM"... and I have explained this to you in http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804182.

And please calm down Jim. There is no need to shout.

Thanks.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 21 2012, 12:35 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 12:25 PM) *
Rob,

What you have explained is that you know some of the witnesses who reported seeing "a plane" and that you believe them.


"Believe them"? No... do I find them credible in the fact they can be called into a court of law as not only a witness, but an Expert Witness? Yes.

QUOTE
What you have not explained is how "a plane" could be a real plane and perform feats that no real plane could perform.


The "feats" can be performed by a real aircraft, especially one which is modified. Again, this was already explained to you in my answers to your questions.

The "feats" cannot be performed by a standard 767, N612UA. Again, I explained this to you in my answers to your questions.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 21 2012, 12:36 PM

Yes, but your answers, which I shall quote here, support two key aspects of NPT, even though you don't admit it, namely: that no Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville and that, in New York, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, did not effortlessly enter the South Tower:

(1) Pilots has established that Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time that
it purportedly crashed in Shanksville. Is it Pilots' position that Flight 93 was
BOTH over Urbana, IL, AND crashed in Shanksville, PA, AT THE SAME TIME?

Absolutely not. There isn't any evidence which has been provided by govt agencies that proves UAL93 crashed in Shanksville. In fact, all data and information provided by govt agencies conflicts with their story. We want to know why, others are free to speculate.

(2) PIlots has established that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time
it purportedly hit the South Tower. Is it Pilots' position that Flight 175 was
BOTH over Pittsburgh, PA, AND hit the South Tower AT THE SAME TIME?

According to ACARS data and statements made by UAL Dispatchers, UAL175 was in the vicinity between MDT and PIT, PA during the events taking place in NYC at the South Tower. Since the aircraft observed to hit the South tower was flying at a speed impossible for a standard 767, combined with the numerous targets converging and then diverging from the alleged UA175 target prior to the impact, the govt has not proven that UA175, N612UA, caused the damage to the south tower. I[n] fact, the data provided conflicts with the govt story. For clarity, this does not mean that some other aircraft may [not] have caused the damage considering the aircraft observed to cause the damage has never been positively identified (nor any of the other 3 aircraft allegedly used on 9/11). 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".

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 21 2012, 10:24 AM) *
No Jim, you were talking about Video Fakery. Go up and http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804211...

However, I disagree with "CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE, BECAUSE IT WAS PERFORMING FEATS THAT NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM"... and I have explained this to you in http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804182.

And please calm down Jim. There is no need to shout.

Thanks.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 21 2012, 12:41 PM

So it is the position of Rob Balsamo, the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, that a real plane can not only travel faster than a standard Boeing 767 at 700-1,000' foot altitude but that it could have entered a massive, 500,000-ton building in violation of Newton's laws and passed its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes though its own length in air, which of course implies no deceleration (since d = r x t), when in fact it should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, luggage, seats and passengers fallen to the ground, and its velocity dropped to zero, none of which happened? And you, Rob Balsamo, actually believe that?

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 21 2012, 11:35 AM) *
"Believe them"? No... do I find them credible in the fact they can be called into a court of law as not only a witness, but an Expert Witness? Yes.

The "feats" can be performed by a real aircraft, especially one which is modified. Again, this was already explained to you in my answers to your questions.

The "feats" cannot be performed by a standard 767, N612UA. Again, I explained this to you in my answers to your questions.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 21 2012, 12:42 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 12:36 PM) *
Yes, but your answers, which I shall quote here, support two key aspects of NPT, even though you don't admit it,


What do I need to admit when I have data provided by govt agencies which conflict with their own story, and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o which conflict with govt data and the govt story?

Can you say the same for the WTC impacts?

For example... Do you have FDR data which shows too high to hit the WTC?

If so, provide it.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 21 2012, 12:46 PM

Why can't you deal with my actual arguments, which are rooted in principles of classic physics, namely, Newton's laws? Why are you evading the issue by citing evidence from the Pentagon case which is not available about the alleged Flight 175 in New York? This is more of the kind of unprofessional and anti-intellectual mode of argumentation of which you are making your practice.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 21 2012, 11:42 AM) *
What do I need to admit when I have data provided by govt agencies which conflict with their own story, and multiple witnesses which conflict with govt data and the govt story?

Can you sday the same for the WTC impacts?

Do you have FDR data which shows too high to hit the WTC?

If so, provide it.


Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 21 2012, 12:50 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 12:41 PM) *
So it is the position of Rob Balsamo, the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, that a real plane can not only travel faster than a standard Boeing 767 at 700-1,000' foot altitude


Absolutely. Here's one of them.



This does not mean I think an F-14 hit the south tower, but that looks like a real plane to me. How about you Jim?


QUOTE
but that it could have entered a massive, 500,000-ton building in violation of Newton's laws and passed its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes though its own length in air, which of course implies no deceleration (since d = r x t), when in fact it should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, luggage, seats and passengers fallen to the ground, and its velocity dropped to zero, none of which happened? And you, Rob Balsamo, actually believe that?



Jim, you're a scientist, right?. Do me a favor. Shoot a filled can of Coke at 590 mph at 1/4 inch steel, let me know what happens.

After you get done with that, increase the density of the aluminum surrounding the a filled coke can and try it again with thicker steel.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 21 2012, 12:57 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 12:46 PM) *
Why can't you deal with my actual arguments, which are rooted in principles of classic physics, namely, Newton's laws? Why are you evading the issue by citing evidence from the Pentagon case which is not available about the alleged Flight 175 in New York? This is more of the kind of unprofessional and anti-intellectual mode of argumentation of which you are making your practice.


If i had FDR data from the WTC which shows too high to hit the WTC, I would have petitioned the NTSB as to why as well, as i did with the Pentagon.

The fact of the matter is Jim, that ample amount of evidence exists to determine actual aircraft hit the WTC, yet does not prove such aircraft were the ones reported, while there is hardly any evidence to support the govt story with respect to the Shanksville and Pentagon events. In fact, the data they have provided, including witness, conflicts with their story.

Jim, are you saying that the evidence gathered for the WTC events is similar and can be compared to the evidence gathered for the Shanksville and Pentagon events?

If so, great! Please provide as many videos of the Shanksville and Pentagon events for starters.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 21 2012, 01:00 PM

This is embarrassing, but illuminating. You have dismissed a theory (NPT) that you have not understood and cannot define.

You have made a point of not reading my articles, which you are nevertheless willing to dismiss with the back of your hand.

You offer an example that has no relevance and which, if it did, would support the use of video fakery without understand it.

And you talk about a can full of Coke when you know that an airplane is more comparable to an empty can. I am stunned!


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 21 2012, 11:50 AM) *
Absolutely. Here's one of them.



This does not mean I think an F-14 hit the south tower, but that looks like a real plane to me. How about you Jim?





Jim, you're a scientist, right?. Do me a favor. Shoot a filled can of Coke at 590 mph at 1/4 inch steel, let me know what happens.

After you get done with that, increase the density of the aluminum surrounding the a filled coke can and try it again with thicker steel.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 21 2012, 01:04 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 01:00 PM) *
This is embarrassing, but illuminating. You have dismissed a theory (NPT) that you have not understood and cannot define.


And apparently you have not read the top of our home page.

QUOTE
You have made a point of not reading my articles, which you are nevertheless willing to dismiss with the back of your hand.


Because I have all the time in the world to research your work... rolleyes.gif

QUOTE
You offer an example that has no relevance and which, if it did, would support the use of video fakery without understand it.


Jim, no matter how hard you try, Pilots For 9/11 Truth will never endorse your theories, nor any other theory. Get used to it. I been explaining this to you for years. This does not mean I do not like you as a person... for what it's worth... smile.gif

QUOTE
And you talk about a can full of Coke when you know that an airplane is more comparable to an empty can. I am stunned!


Really? Aircraft don't hold liquid in their wings? And an empty Coke can has internal structural supports such as a main spar, bulkheads, and ribs??? Has seats, passengers (averaging 170-180 lbs of 70% liquid), a cockpit filled with heavy instruments, Flight Management computers, heavy ADC/IAC computers, DAU's, and luggage? I suppose an empty coke can also has 6000 lb engines hanging from it?

Ever held even a http://www.flightmemories.com/images/Cessna_Altimeter_Indicator_50043.jpg from a Cessna in your hands? It's heavier and more solid than a full can of Coke. Then go out an hold some of http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/2/6/2/1351262.jpg in your hands....that's an avionics bay.. .just a http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-%28Qantas%29/Boeing-767-238-ER/1351262/L/ i did.

Jim, better yet, shoot an FMC computer into 1/4" steel at 590 mph, let me know how you make out. After you get done with that, try human dummies filled with liquid. Or perhaps even a thawed chicken.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 21 2012, 02:15 PM

Rob,

I am not going to try to persuade you of anything. But I would appreciate it if you were to visit http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/11/inside-job-more-proof-of-911-duplicity/ and offer your assessment of the images from the Naudet Brothers video. Does that look like a Boeing 767 to you?

Or go to http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/ and review the images of Flight 175 effortlessly entering the South Tower? I have no idea whether you have ever studied physics, but do you seriously believe what you are seeing is a real plane entry?

From your previous statements, you do not believe that a Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville and, from what else I read, you are clearly skeptical that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. So I think you are about half-way there. Give this just a little more thought.

I would observe, by the way, that the arguments I have given are scientific, because they involved reasoning based upon laws of nature, including laws of physics, engineering and aerodynamics. Faulty analogies with more differences than similarities don't cut it.

Thanks for putting up with me. I respect the right of everyone here to believe what they want to believe. Having taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years, however, I encourage everyone to take some time to study the relevant evidence.

Jim

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 21 2012, 12:04 PM) *
And apparently you have not read the top of our home page.

Because I have all the time in the world to research your work... rolleyes.gif

Jim, no matter how hard you try, Pilots For 9/11 Truth will never endorse your theories, nor any other theory. Get used to it. I been explaining this to you for years. This does not mean I do not like you as a person... for what it's worth... smile.gif

Really? Aircraft don't hold liquid in their wings? And an empty Coke can has internal structural supports such as a main spar, bulkheads, and ribs??? Has seats, passengers (averaging 170-180 lbs of 70% liquid), a cockpit filled with heavy instruments, Flight Management computers, heavy ADC/IAC computers, DAU's, and luggage? I suppose an empty coke can also has 6000 lb engines hanging from it?

Ever held even a small Altimeter from a Cessna in your hands? It's heavier and more solid than a full can of Coke. Then go out an hold some of http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/2/6/2/1351262.jpg in your hands....that's an avionics bay.. .just a http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-%28Qantas%29/Boeing-767-238-ER/1351262/L/ i did.

Jim, better yet, shoot an FMC computer into 1/4" steel at 590 mph, let me know how you make out. After you get done with that, try human dummies filled with liquid. Or perhaps even a thawed chicken.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 21 2012, 02:27 PM

Here you confirm that you not only have not read my articles but you have no even read my posts on this forum! I've explained that the question is NOT the use of video fakery by faking videos but that the evidence supports the use of fake planes in both of the alleged crashed in New York: an arrangement of four UVAs in the case of the North Tower and of a sophisticate hologram in the case of the South.

I wish it were not so, but as I have also explained, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the case!" You may be an expert on planes as a pilot, but I am an expert on logic and reasoning, where your failure to even acknowledge your misunderstanding of my position, even after I have explained it repeatedly on this very forum, has to be deliberate and duplicitous.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 21 2012, 11:57 AM) *
If i had FDR data from the WTC which shows too high to hit the WTC, I would have petitioned the NTSB as to why as well, as i did with the Pentagon.

The fact of the matter is Jim, that ample amount of evidence exists to determine actual aircraft hit the WTC, yet does not prove such aircraft were the ones reported, while there is hardly any evidence to support the govt story with respect to the Shanksville and Pentagon events. In fact, the data they have provided, including witness, conflicts with their story.

Jim, are you saying that the evidence gathered for the WTC events is similar and can be compared to the evidence gathered for the Shanksville and Pentagon events?

If so, great! Please provide as many videos of the Shanksville and Pentagon events for starters.


Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 21 2012, 02:29 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 02:15 PM) *
you do not believe ...



My "beliefs" are irrelevant.

Over the years I have been told (as well as others being told) what I "believe" more times than care to remember. Especially from those who make excuse for the govt story. Most of it are strawmans.

The facts are the facts. We do not offer theory. Our Mission Statement on the top of our http://pilotsfor911truth.org speaks for itself.

As I have stated in this thread... people are free to pursue any avenue they feel appropriate. We still do have some freedom left in this country. I will not knock anyone for pursuing what they feel is right for themselves. Try not to do that to me, or our organization in general, if we don't feel your work is a priority, or even worthy, of research, when our plate (my plate in particular) is already more than full.

Again, I would appreciate it if you would post a disclaimer to any of your future articles which analyze NPT, that P4T do not endorse NPT... if you use our work. If you are unable to do so, you do not have permission to use our work in any of your future articles. And again, I'm not trying to be hostile or condescending, I am trying to lessen the distractions I have, when I already have a full plate to work on other projects.

I have already put other work on the back burner to address this issue here. Now excuse me if I no longer pay as close attention to this thread.

Posted by: amazed! Mar 21 2012, 03:39 PM

QUOTE (Dennis Cimino @ Mar 20 2012, 02:28 AM) *
I'm not a disinformation shill and I don't think Fetzer is either.

he's not a pilot. and in all honesty, non-aviation people really don't get it. aviation is a very very hard thing for most people to fully comprehend and fully
understand.

only a pilot with a lot of experience can fully grasp a lot of stuff we take for granted...and it's not too very often you'll find a layperson who
even remotely comes close to understanding either the FAR's or the reason why procedures are the way they are.

to some extent we're priveleged men, Rob. we have been there and done that which few could ever do.

when we have good eggs trying to get a clue we have to be more patient with them and not assume them all to be like the neocons who could care less about
aviation or what is going on with aerodynamics. they only understand death meting out and dealings.


Fetzer has accidentally shafted me strictly because I have given him license to do stuff I should have INSISTED THAT I DO, like vetting of every single picture that went into that article.

that I guess is my fault for not stipulating it. it took a long time for him to get Duff to accede to me publishing ANYTHING there at all.

in the comments, Duff goes way out on a line to defend that article. and I think that means a lot. VT could be a good foot in the door for some P4T stuff other than my work. In time, we should plug for international articles too, in high profile places where we had not gone before.


I'm going to bed but I hope that people realize that I am not the fucking enemy. nor is Fetzer. the affiliation is far from perfect but we are trying to get people globally to wake up. We are running out of time.


I absolutely agree!

The thing that is most distasteful about the whole cyberworld 911 Truth movement is that so many individuals a) insist upon attacking OTHER individuals with the same basic goal as themselves, or b) take themselves so damn seriously. Good grief, we're all human and positively WILL make mistakes.

That the picture of the supposed flight path at the Pentagon has been made into a mountain, and that now Rob & Jim are almost calling each other names is a comment on humankind more than anything.

We pilots must understand, and I think we all do, that NONpilots are not up on the lingo and cannot have a full appreciation of aerodynamics and such. We should keep that idea in the front of our communications with the public.

My opinion is that Dennis has hit a homerun with his article. That government apologists must pounce upon the relative inaccuracy of a frigging diagram that is fairly close shows how desperate they are and how weak their argument is.

We do not need to go down into the gutter with them. The OCT is a damn lie and even the apologists know that. Dennis' piece is simply more evidence of HOW AND WHY it is a lie.


Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 21 2012, 04:54 PM

i had a bit of time to quickly scroll through http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804177....

I about fell off my chair laughing after reading this... so i thought i'd share...

"tsig" posts (in reference to the traffic viewing this thread here on P4T) -

Right now:

8 User(s) are reading this topic (6 Guests and 1 Anonymous Users)
1 Members: jfetzer


and I was one of the guests.


"Sword Of Truth" replies -

Is he [jfetzer] really a member here? [on JREF]

Do we have to stop making fun of him?



... and they wonder why they are referred to as 'duhbunkers'... laughing1.gif

Psst, SOT, your buddy was referring to the people viewing this thread, here on P4T. ......Dumbass.

And here are the current users viewing this thread...

18 User(s) are reading this topic (14 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
4 Members: rob balsamo, onesliceshort, will52, Rickysa

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 21 2012, 09:50 PM

Our stats graph over the past week.




Thank you http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&st=20&p=10804177&#entry10804177! Keep em coming!

laughing1.gif

(Keep in mind, the above are only Forum Stats. They do not include main site stats)

Posted by: woody Mar 22 2012, 01:07 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 03:13 PM) *
Another nice example of misunderstanding NPT. It has nothing to do with video fakery per se, which would be any use of videos to convey false or misleading impressions of the events of 9/11. It has to do with the plane. NPT holds that no Boeings crashed at any of the alleged sites--not in Shanksville, not at the Pentagon, not into the North Tower and, most surprisingly, not into the South Tower.


I remember the days when a certain Mr. Pickering tried to smear the CIT research with NPT by coining the term "no plane at the Pentagon", implying that CIT were working on the same poor intellectual level and propagating a similar nonsense like Gerard Homgren R.I.P., Morgan Reynolds, the webfairy etc. etc. This term was eagerly picked up by Mr. Hoffman, Mrs. Ashley and other people of the radical LIHOP clique.

Funnily, Mr. Fetzer, you're doing exactly the same, blurring the difference between painstaking research and unsubstantiated speculation. It nearly looks like you're a buddy of Mr.Pickering. You two are damaging the best evidence we have, only from different positions. It's kind of a good cop/bad cop game.


Posted by: Tamborine man Mar 23 2012, 02:39 AM

QUOTE (woody @ Mar 20 2012, 04:07 PM) *
I remember the days when a certain Mr. Pickering tried to smear the CIT research with NPT by coining the term "no plane at the Pentagon", implying that CIT were working on the same poor intellectual level and propagating a similar nonsense like Gerard Homgren R.I.P., Morgan Reynolds, the webfairy etc. etc. This term was eagerly picked up by Mr. Hoffman, Mrs. Ashley and other people of the radical LIHOP clique.

Funnily, Mr. Fetzer, you're doing exactly the same, blurring the difference between painstaking research and unsubstantiated speculation. It nearly looks like you're a buddy of Mr.Pickering. You two are damaging the best evidence we have, only from different positions. It's kind of a good cop/bad cop game.



Com'on people be real now, please!

If NPT simply means that none of the 'official' planes crashed at either locations, then I'm certainly also a NPT adherent and supporter.

Please try to use your imagination to the fullest. Regarding second tower, we see on all videos a plane slicing into the building effortlessly.
No resistance by the steel columns nor the steel spandrel plates or the concrete floors behind the plates is offered to any of the weaker
parts of the airplane, such as the wingtips and the horizontal and vertical stabilizers. None whatsoever.

But if that's not enough, next we come to the truly bizarre and totally mad:
In the instant the plane has fully penetrated the facade it comes to an abrupt halt!!??

We know this, because the split second after the plane disappears into the building, a big fireball takes shape on the right side of the building
15 – 20 meters along from the impact facade. Not halfway, not ¾ way into the building, but within the first quarter, or third, of the way in!
A fireball also forms outside of the entry hole.

We also know (because of the impact hole and the alleged direction the plane flew), that apart from the port side wing, most of the plane
would have missed the center core of the building, and hence should have continued more or less partly intact (because of the floors only)
on its over 800 km/h speed through the open office spaces, impacting the side wall and the far end wall, a mere 64 meters away from the
entry opening – or ca. 26 meters away from the 'undamaged' nose of the plane!! But (ignoring everything about the so-called "nosecone")
none of this happened!
No further impact (now from the inside of the tower) was visible either from the right side wall or from the North end wall in any of the
videos or photos we have seen of the exterior of the building. No outward bulging whatsoever of the walls, is seen anywhere!


The plane apparently stopped, dead in its track, just inside the perimeter wall!


I truly hope that not one single member of PF9/11T will even dream of entertaining this idea that such insanity could have taken place
…….Please!!!!

Let us instead gladly give this preposterous lunacy to the 'loyalists', the shills, the 'paid agents' and their 'research assistants', together with
the rest of the truly ignorant and hopelessly immature twerps amongst them.

The planes seen and witnessed in the skies that day is a completely different story that deserves its own close scrutiny and investigation,
and which has already for a long period admirably been started by many good people.

NPT therefore - seen in the Right Light - is an absolute fact as far as I'm concerned, and should naturally be supported by all other just and
wise people! wink.gif

Cheers

Posted by: Tamborine man Mar 23 2012, 04:41 AM

Just came across Shoestrings article on Bloggers.

'Much food for Thought' i Thought:

'However, despite Cooper's statement that the hijacking was "not an exercise, not a test," NEADS personnel continued to question whether information they received about the attacks was real or just simulation. For example, at 9:03 a.m., NEADS received a phone call informing it that a second aircraft had been hijacked, and personnel also saw the live television coverage of the second plane, Flight 175, crashing into the World Trade Center. A minute or two later, recordings of the operations floor reveal, several members of staff discussed these developments among themselves. One of them asked, "Is this explosion part of that that we're looking at now on TV?" Someone replied: "Yes. And there's a possible second hijack also--a United Airlines." Another person then commented, "I think this is a damn input, to be honest." An "input" is a simulations input, as part of a training exercise. Someone else said, "Then this is a damned messed-up input." [8]'


"I've never seen so much real-world stuff happen during an exercise."
- Major James Fox, Northeast Air Defense Sector, September 11, 2001

http://www.911blogger.com/dailynews

Cheers



Posted by: mrmitosis Mar 23 2012, 05:14 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 21 2012, 02:39 PM) *
We pilots must understand, and I think we all do, that NONpilots are not up on the lingo and cannot have a full appreciation of aerodynamics and such. We should keep that idea in the front of our communications with the public.


Not many would dispute the fact that qualified and experienced professional pilots, aircraft maintenance engineers, FDR experts etc are better equipped to appreciate the subtle nuances (as well as the basics, I suppose) of aviation. But let's not forget about the role of the Student Forum Pilot; especially those who are prepared to actively defend not only the research, but also the REPUTATIONS of those who are courageous enough to publically question the OCT of 9/11.

It's simply amazing how much toxic waste gets posted on the internet, and despite my lack of specialised knowledge in any particular field, I still feel it incumbent upon me to respond when I see high quality work being tarnished by fuckheads who lack the intelligence and moral integrity to seek out and propagate the truth.

I'm not fishing for worthy.gif or cheers.gif or thumbsup.gif or shake.gif, but the fact is that I spend a lot of my spare time smacking down shills and debunkers who have made it their mission in life to smear P4T and others with defamatory remarks and disinformation. I might not grasp many of the technical details, but I'm reasonably capable of expressing the small fraction that I DO understand. As far as I'm concerned, 9/11 Truth is primarily a PR exercise. Not many people are even aware of it, let alone convinced by it.

My apologies for drifting off-topic, but as a means of illustrating the above, I have some more examples of the types of "conversations" I've had this week with cretinous sub human filth who continue to rubbish Dennis Cimino...both in terms of the article as well as him personally. Incidentally, I won't have time this weekend to go into bat for Dennis. In other words, the italicised comments below will probably go unchallenged. Perhaps that doesn't worry anybody else, but it worries me.

(Again, these have been copy and pasted on rkowens4's YouTube channel. Comments appear in reverse order - ie, the most recent ones are at the top.)

EdgemanLL2 posted a comment
17 hours ago
Report Spam
RetarDennis makes the claim that the plane was too high to hit the penty. based on 29.92 being the calibration setting for the altimeters ("there was no 18k adjustment, at any time"). Then claims later the adjustments to the altimeters were made. RetarDennis claims the turn was "skillfull and precise." Anyone actually veiwing the FDR recreation would (if they hadnt know what they were watching) assume the pilot was drunk. Very sloppy, and imprecise. jerky, inconsistant roll inputs, porpoising atlitudes.

EdgemanLL2 posted a comment
17 hours ago
Report Spam
RetarDennis claims the flight 77 crew as killed in their seats. False. Phone calls from 77 confirm the crew was at the back of the plane with the rest of the pax. RetarDennis claims simply "touching the yoke or rudder pedals" would disengage the autopilot. Also False. As anyone even minimally familiar with aviation knows, Eastern 401 resulted in A/P systems being reworked so that it takes a great deal of force applied to the controls to disengage the A/P. To prevent an accidental "bump" on a control turning off the system.

EdgemanLL2 posted a comment
17 hours ago
Report Spam
MoronDennis claims the hijackers would have had to immediately know precisely where they were "and I do mean IMMEDIATELY" order to navigate back. This is false. You dont need to know exactly where you are "AND I DO MEAN IMMEDIATELY" to use the A/P to make a 180 deg turn back towards the way you came. RetarDennis also claims the initial turn back toward DC put it on the exact, precise path to the Penty. also false. FDR data shows course corrections over mid-West Virginia. And again about 10 mins from impact, before the hijackers turned off the A/P

EdgemanLL2 posted a comment
17 hours ago
Report Spam
It VIOLATES FARs for a civilian airliners to carry military IFF. Moron tells us the DC airspace is impenetrable (Frank Eugene Corder is unavailable for comment) and the penty (supposed) defense systems are impenetrable. Then claims they have had drills in the past where a plane was crashed intentionally into the Penty. Again, it cant be both. They would never run drills contemplated a plane crashing into the buliding if it was impossible for a plane to crash into the building.

EdgemanLL2 posted a comment
17 hours ago
Report Spam
MoronDennis states the turn was "standard rates" (which it was) then refers to it as a 6-g turn. It cant be both. A starard rate turn NEVER results in 6-g's. MoronDennis claims a high speed turn, well beyond Vmo. Yet the Data shows the speed was never higher than 300 kias (well below Vmo) and usually much lower, through the turn. MoronDennis marvles at how "precise and coordinated" the turn was. Then later admits they never used the rudders. It cant be both. They couldnt have been using the rudders with such "extreme precision" if they never touched the rudder. Also, anyone viewing the FDR simulation KNOWS the flights were nothing near coordinated turns.

EdgemanLL2 posted a comment
17 hours ago
Report Spam
Weirdo---youre correct. The "essay" is a literal treasure-trove of bullshit.A person could start with any paragrpagh amd reel off countless erroros. BTS is Bureau of Trans STATISTICS. Not the Bureau of Transportation Flight Schedules. BTS records statistics on ACUAL flights.Pick any date. On any date there are literally trillions of flights that DONT exist. Yet the BTS doesnt have any line-entries for flights not exist. Moron Dennis claims they must have used "EXTRORDINARY" body control to not touch the rudder pedals. Yet, its no more diffuclt to not put your feet on the rudder pedals than it is to (while driving down the highway on cruise control) to not touch the braks or throttle when your driving.

Weirdo10o4 posted a comment
20 hours ago
Report Spam
I can keep going.

Weirdo10o4 posted a comment
20 hours ago
Report Spam
The BTS does not record hijacked aircraft. And their statistics show Flight 11 from earlier weeks SO IT WAS a regular scheduled flight. The autopilot did the turn. It wasn't disengaged until later. It's easy to use the basic controls. They did bring their own GPS systems, but they had no need to even know their position. The crash in Colombia was in IFR conditions. The cockpit door wasn't recorded. It didn't show open at any point during the flight or on the ground.

Weirdo10o4 posted a comment
20 hours ago
Report Spam
Truly amazing, a Kook that hasn't heard of the fall of the Soviet Union. Any military threat would be detected hours before it would reach the US mainland. There's no need for air defense emplacements in Washington, because mobile systems can be placed in Washington before any conceivable threat would reach it. Not to mention that stationary emplacements would be tremendously easy to sabotage, unlike their mobile counterparts. Stinger type missiles don't even necessarily bring down an aircraft so why not fire one AND have high definition cameras pointed at the Pentagon's lawn.

Weirdo10o4 posted a comment
20 hours ago
Report Spam
Kevlar wouldn't help you for shit if you were being shot with 30mm or Hellfires(which can penetrate any known armor) or an aircraft for that matter. / Where's the source for this amazing information about the DC airspace doctrine, and why did they Avengers (Humvee mounted anti air system) to Washington D.C. after 9/11 and a year later. Before 9/11 there was only a restriction on flying over the White House, Congress and Mall area.

Weirdo10o4 posted a comment
21 hours ago
Report Spam
There is no evidence for a Point Defense System in Washington D.C. and no reason for there to be one. Aircraft had violated the DC airspace before and none were shot down, even when they wanted to shoot them and had time to do so. The fighter bases in the vicinity weren't part of the Aerospace Defense Command, they had no aircraft ready unlike the (COLD WAR REMNANTS) under NORAD command, whose doctrine was still governed by a Soviet invasion.. And a lot of good that Kevlar did although this is the first I've ever heard of it. Kevlar is only used in conjunction with ceramic armor to deflect low energy shrapnel and munitions.

Weirdo10o4 posted a comment
21 hours ago
Report Spam
Pentagon's MASCAL exercise was held primarily because: A) The Pentagon is located at the end of a runway. B) Just a few years ago an aircraft crashed in to the Potomac. C) The accident scenario would be less depressing than an attack scenario even though the exercise would refine skills for responding to both. / Here we are with all these morons pretending they know something yet they haven't a clue of the most basic aspects of the official account. I'll just ignore the fact that they smell like people who decided what happened before they reviewed any of the evidence. If you know why the hijackers attacked the US you know why they chose the targets they chose.

Weirdo10o4 posted a comment
21 hours ago
Report Spam
Researches who studied the aircraft impacts found that even putting the aircraft in a "sausage skin" for resulted in the same level of damage. That's because at those velocities it's no longer about the strength of the aircraft but the energy of the aircraft. You fucking morons pretend to be smart enough to figure out the inside job, but can't figure out A FUCKING FISH-EYE LENS. Did Silverstein give orders to the Fire Department or a demolition company? They had firemen in the building when he made the decision to pull them out. Even Alex Jones got this right - for five minutes. Fuck you.

Weirdo10o4 posted a comment
21 hours ago
Report Spam
The only flaw? It's got so many flaws in it that that whole article is a flaw. First paragraph it is: at comparable or higher speed a 757 is expected to behave exactly like the F-4 in the Sandia test, because it's built the same if not weaker than the F-4. It's not just 12 inches of concrete, it's 12 inches of REINFORCED CONCRETE meant to take the abuse of truck bombs. There is a clear mark left by the aircraft. I can source my claims, the article has no sources.

Posted by: woody Mar 23 2012, 08:13 AM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Mar 23 2012, 06:39 AM) *
Com'on people be real now, please!

If NPT simply means that none of the 'official' planes crashed at either locations, then I'm certainly also a NPT adherent and supporter.

...

NPT therefore - seen in the Right Light - is an absolute fact as far as I'm concerned, and should naturally be supported by all other just and
wise people! wink.gif

Cheers


Certainly the term "No plane theory" can theoretidally be interpreted in a way which is compatible with natural laws and dozens of eyewitnesses. But that's not the point. For years now, the term NPT has the negative connotation of faked WTC impacts and is linked with Gerard Holmgren R.I.P, Nico Haupt, Rosalee Grable, Killtown, Morgan Reynolds, and some other names whose reputation is not the best, to say the least. It is therefore way too late to discuss the semantics of NPT. Any attempt to establish the term NPT as designation for a serious branch of research bears the big danger of mixing truth with half-truth and outright nuts.

Mr. Fetzer should know this, and I'm afraid he knows it.


Posted by: amazed! Mar 23 2012, 10:48 AM

Good post Mitosis.

It seems obvious to me that the numerous attacks against Dennis clearly show that government apologists are scared silly about the substance of his article. The ad hominem attack is as old as the hills, and indicates that those doing it do not have a leg to stand on in a fair and honest discussion.

Posted by: Tamborine man Mar 23 2012, 11:17 AM

QUOTE (woody @ Mar 21 2012, 11:13 AM) *
Certainly the term "No plane theory" can theoretidally be interpreted in a way which is compatible with natural laws and dozens of eyewitnesses. But that's not the point. For years now, the term NPT has the negative connotation of faked WTC impacts and is linked with Gerard Holmgren R.I.P, Nico Haupt, Rosalee Grable, Killtown, Morgan Reynolds, and some other names whose reputation is not the best, to say the least. It is therefore way too late to discuss the semantics of NPT. Any attempt to establish the term NPT as designation for a serious branch of research bears the big danger of mixing truth with half-truth and outright nuts.

Mr. Fetzer should know this, and I'm afraid he knows it.


Sorry, but i'm not sure i understand a word of what you're talking about here!

If you believe that no planes of any kind crashed at any of the 4 locations, that
would surely indicate the fact that 'fakery' in one form or another had taken place, yes?

If you believe that planes of any kind crashed at the 4 locations, then i can understand
why you don't appreciate the term NPT, but judging from your comment above, that
doesn't seem to be the case, correct?

If the term NPT appears to be such a problem, perhaps all that is needed is to find
another term that also would describe this same situation, but one we all could live with.
That would solve this problem rather quickly, so perhaps somebody could come up with
some suggestions we could all then vote upon?

I don't know much about Haupt, Grable and Reynolds, but thought that Killtown was
supposed to be one of the 'good' guys. Never heard him say anything i would disagree
with!

Concerning Holmgren, here's a link to an interview with him back in 2005 that i can't
find anything wrong with either.


http://www.septemberclues.info/AnInterviewGerardHolmgren.htm

Cheers

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Mar 23 2012, 12:04 PM

Tambourine man,

NPT=no planes theory. Not non-impact theory. No planes theory originally and ONLY applied to the asinine disinformation /theories that no planes hit the towers. Disinformation operatives like fetzer and the anonymous Killtown desperately try to link the term to the genuine investigations done by PFT, CIT, and Dom DiMaggio proving there were planes and they didn't hit the target.

There were planes used on 9/11 at all events.

This Disinformation using the term "no planes" is designed to and HAS hurt the truth movement. It has divided it and allowed us to look inept and kooky.

Do you understand? Just because you redefine the term to mean something else in an attempt to play some type of kumbaya peacemaker doesn't mean the rest of the world defines the term the same way.

Planes hit the towers, videos were not faked.

Food for thought:

I've mentioned this story before. I met fetzer at the LA conference where Charlie Sheen spoke. After fetzer's little disinfo presentation he was swarmed by an older crowd of groupies. He had been promoting the "blue tarp box carrying something secret out of the pentagon" and I wanted to inform that it was one of the things he had been incorrect about and that it was just a blue tent rescuers were bringing onto the lawn. Well as I go up to him and tell him this and correct him, inadvertently in front of his adoring followers, he flips out and very forcefully and very aggressively insists I'm wrong. He literally, and angrily, gets in my face to talk me down, in an almost accusatory fashion. I found it too bizarre to be the behavior of a "scholar".

Well he was wrong about the "blue tarp box". Very wrong. He insisted he was right. As if I was telling him the sky was a different color other than blue.

So what makes him right or even qualified to comment on shit like exotic holograms or cgi pre-planned Tv. Why is no one using their brain and asking themselves why they supposedly spent incredible resources on a few crystal clear cgi scenes(while apparently using unclear ones as well), but completely dropped the ball when it came to the grainy and nearly indescernible pentagon videos?

Bottom line: scholarsfor911truth divide and conquer+constant disinfo+no planes+bizarre and forceful behavior+ex-marine+academia being infiltrated=fetzer is an operative.

I don't know what motivates him or what allegiance he has that he is doing this for, but it's clear he is doing it. He is like a cancer on the movement. That's what they do, they attach themselves like tumors and destroy/chip away from within.

Btw, for those reading, if he ever gets in my face or that close to me again he's going to experience a much different outcome.

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 23 2012, 01:14 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZvugebaT6Q

That's the real reason for the attempted splicing of NPT with research here and at CIT.

Posted by: mrmitosis Mar 23 2012, 04:38 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 23 2012, 12:14 PM) *
That's the real reason for the attempted splicing of NPT with research here and at CIT.


Fetzer has done such an exquisite job of hijacking this thread, that a discussion intended to broach hard evidence provided by the NTSB and the rational conclusions which can be drawn from a sober analysis of the data, has been relegated to the Alternative Theories SubForum.

I suspect he even had Rob convinced for a minute that Dennis' article itself is an underhanded attempt to vindicate NPT.

Dennis references the CIT body of research several times in the article. As far as I'm concerned, the implications of CIT's witness accounts are in no way reconcilable with those of NPT. Dennis has every right to feel betrayed by his editor.

Nice one Jimbo.

Posted by: Tamborine man Mar 23 2012, 11:59 PM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Mar 21 2012, 03:04 PM) *
Tambourine man,

NPT=no planes theory. Not non-impact theory. No planes theory originally and ONLY applied to the asinine disinformation /theories that no planes hit the towers. Disinformation operatives like fetzer and the anonymous Killtown desperately try to link the term to the genuine investigations done by PFT, CIT, and Dom DiMaggio proving there were planes and they didn't hit the target.


Thats it then. NIT = non-impact theory. NIT it shall be from now on then, unless somebody else got other ideas of course?

QUOTE
There were planes used on 9/11 at all events.


In my post further up replying to Wooly and others, i wrote:

'The planes seen and witnessed in the skies that day is a completely different story that deserves its own close
scrutiny and investigation, and which has already for a long period admirably been started by many good people.'

Needless to say that in the above, i of course had both CIT, P4T and Dimaggio in mind, plus a few others!

QUOTE
This Disinformation using the term "no planes" is designed to and HAS hurt the truth movement. It has divided it and allowed us to look inept and kooky.

Do you understand? Just because you redefine the term to mean something else in an attempt to play some type of kumbaya peacemaker doesn't mean the rest of the world defines the term the same way.

Planes hit the towers, videos were not faked.


Ok. In my post above i give reason why i think it's sheer madness to believe planes hit the towers.
A plane flying over 800 Km/h cannot come to a sudden instant stop. That's an impossibility, and i
think you'll embark on an impossible task trying to convince me otherwise. But by all means i don't
mind at all if you try. (Keep in mind that there was no solid reinforced concrete block halfway inside
the tower blocking the path. It was just open office space)!

Question: How long does it take for a plane flying 800 Km/h to cover 64 meters? A gentle blink of an
eye??

QUOTE
Food for thought:

I've mentioned this story before. I met fetzer .......


The weird people over at truthfraction spend around 99% of their time attacking and vilifying 'anybody'
within the "truth movement" they think they can lay their hands on. This includes CIT and P4T.
This is probably more 'cancerous' to the so-called "movement" than anything else, if you ask me.

I advise you not to talk like them - nor sink to their level.

I never interfere when personalities and egos clash, but instead wisely stay outside the ring looking as
a mere humble spectator in amazement upon the spectacle in front of me. I take none of it serious.

But that's not to say i won't interfere and offer help when i see a person being savagely attacked by a
pack of boofhead bogan moron dawg wolfes. Always had a soft spot for the 'underdog' and the
'little people' of this world!

Cheers

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 24 2012, 04:24 AM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Mar 23 2012, 11:59 PM) *
.....unless somebody else got other ideas of course?


Yes, we do. It has been on the top of our home page since 2006.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org

Pay particular attention to the underlined sentence.

Posted by: amazed! Mar 24 2012, 10:12 AM

I wonder how hard it would be to compile a short collection of videos taken by other, ordinary, common folk (as opposed to the various 'official' videos) showing the approach and impact of the second strike?

I remember seeing them years ago, and testimony from people who actually saw it happen, but did not archive them, or whatever the proper term is.

That is the material that can put the 'no plane at WTC' controversy to rest IMO.

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 24 2012, 11:50 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 24 2012, 03:12 PM) *
I wonder how hard it would be to compile a short collection of videos taken by other, ordinary, common folk (as opposed to the various 'official' videos) showing the approach and impact of the second strike?

I remember seeing them years ago, and testimony from people who actually saw it happen, but did not archive them, or whatever the proper term is.

That is the material that can put the 'no plane at WTC' controversy to rest IMO.


The video that Jim Fetzer links to, allegedly taken by Mike Hezarkhani is apparently corroborated by an image which appears to be taken from the same vantage point. It was allegedly taken by Carmen Taylor.

http://beyondpoliticsand911.com/photogallery/albums/userpics/10001/Flight-175-WTC-2-Carmen-Taylor-pic.jpg

She was interviewed by Jeff Hill (copy and paste to browser - eliminate gap)

http://Http://www.pump itout.com/audio/ct_101407.mp3

Put your bullshit detector on and I defy anybody here to tell me that she isn't genuine.

There are many more images and videos. Here's a few just from a quick google

Scott myers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2hY0QleiHY

Luis Alonso

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/5145/fantadevscr4.gif

Ronald Pordy

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/1646/citylights1ev2.gif


Robert Fisch

http://old.911digitalarchive.org/images/details/515


Luke Cremin

http://old.911digitalarchive.org/images/details/1200

Rob Howard

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00354/tv-column27rvt1__354027gm-o.jpg

Question. Would the perps leave 100% knowledge and proof of the scale some are suggesting in the hands of so many? Proof that could see gallows being put up all over the US in the morning? I know it's a dramatic image but I'm just giving some a reality check here.

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)

The best resolution and close-up of the Naudet brothers film is to be found on Simon Shack's video

01:10 and 02:04 specifically. Watch repeatedly. It's clear as day to me that there is an explosion just before impact. He doesn't focus on this at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM

Maybe this burying of a more obvious anomaly was the source of NPT?

No, I can't explain the physics of the impacts but there was some form of aircraft used.

Posted by: Tamborine man Mar 24 2012, 12:37 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 22 2012, 07:24 AM) *
Yes, we do. It has been on the top of our home page since 2006.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org

Pay particular attention to the underlined sentence.



Naturally I didn't speak on behalf of P4T, but only from a personal viewpoint.
This thread is in the 'Alternative theories' section, where I presumed one was
permitted to speak ones mind without fear or favour!!

Dom DiMaggio do not believe a plane crashed in Shanksville. I agree.
CIT and P4T do not believe a plane crashed into the pentagon. I agree.
Some people believe no planes crashed into the WTC towers. I agree.
Some people believe the 3 towers were brought down by CD. I agree.
Etc. etc..

I know little about J. Fetzer; only what I can gather through his posts in this
forum.
Not for a second do I believe he in this forum has been attacked by a 'pack of
…. wolves', so naturally I couldn't have been referring to this gentleman.

I was in fact referring to people like Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, Bob Balsamo,
Dennis Cimino, John Lear, Barry Twicker, Kevin Ryan and many others who
over the years have been viciously haunted by the infamous howling-chorus.

When I advised Aldo not to sink to "their" levels, that should naturally be taken
in the positive.I know all too well that these opponents, living mostly in a world
of Darkness, are far too skilled in the game of derision and nastiness, than those
for Truth and Justice could ever 'hope' to be!

I have supported CIT and P4T in the thick and the thin the last 5 – 6 years, and
will of course continue to do so, no matter if Aldo choose to believe planes crashed
into the towers. I respect his views in this regard even though I cannot share them
with him personally at this point.

Cheers

Posted by: elreb Mar 24 2012, 02:00 PM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Mar 24 2012, 06:37 AM) *
Some people believe no planes crashed into the WTC towers.

This reminds me of “Nitroglycerine”…shock and sensitive make it dangerous…

It would be interesting to have a “Poll” of members.

Just guessing out loud, I would “not” think that anyone believes that AA11, AA77, United 93 and United 175 hit anything.

From there you could elaborate to the question of special aircraft hitting the towers, and special flying objects hitting the Pentagon and Shanksville.

This whole idea of 19 Saudi Arabians [15] pulling this off…is great material for the Brothers Grimm.

In this fairy Tale, we actually roll out the Red carpet and wait for Dorothy to click her Silver slippers…”There’s no place like Home” [Homeland Security…I mean]

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 24 2012, 04:28 PM

QUOTE
From there you could elaborate to the question of special aircraft hitting the towers, and special flying objects hitting the Pentagon and Shanksville.


No "special flying object" struck the Pentagon.

There's no evidence whatsoever of another craft or missile striking the Pentagon bar misconstrued witness quotemines from the media. Anything as long as something "struck" the building, eh? Something that can easily be debunked. A "grey area" that tptb can manipulate.

Crazy.

On the one hand we have the "chosen ones" at 911Blogger and TruthAction berating and blatantly lying about the NOC evidence and the work done here by Rob. Branding Pentagon research "toxic" and "detrimental" to the research done in Manhattan (irrelevant utter bollox).

On the other, we have people in the NPT camp trying to drag the same research and evidence into their "fight". That's not a nice sandwich. And it's particularly disrespectful to the same people who've been taking this flack incessantly for six years only to have another boulder strung around their necks.
Especially when they want to clearly distance themselves from it.

Same goes for the "laymen" amongst us who go out into the "ethernet" to defend and spread their work (amazed! - hopefully you'll dazzle us all one day with your aeronautical knowledge).

I agree with Woody that this has all the hallmarks of a "bad cop, good cop" routine.

For the government nodding dogs skulking around this thread. This is what a real forum with real people looks like. Take your rara skirts off and join the party. Bob.


Posted by: elreb Mar 24 2012, 05:57 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 24 2012, 10:28 AM) *
No "special flying object" struck the Pentagon.

You apparently missed my point!

I said: “It would be interesting to have a “Poll” of members”.

It does not matter what I think. I live in a glass tent!

…shock and sensitive make it dangerous…

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Mar 24 2012, 06:04 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Mar 24 2012, 01:00 PM) *
Just guessing out loud, I would “not” think that anyone believes that AA11, AA77, United 93 and United 175 hit anything.


That is the real issue. Because if those specific planes did not hit the targets, the entire Official Myth is a stinking pile of bullshit.

What did or did not hit the targets is a separate issue, that without a real investigation is impossible to prove and all anyone can do is speculate. Of course, the gov has billions to spend poisoning the well and they've done a masterful job of it.


Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 24 2012, 06:54 PM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Mar 24 2012, 11:04 PM) *
That is the real issue. Because if those specific planes did not hit the targets, the entire Official Myth is a stinking pile of bullshit.

What did or did not hit the targets is a separate issue, that without a real investigation is impossible to prove and all anyone can do is speculate. Of course, the gov has billions to spend poisoning the well and they've done a masterful job of it.


Spot on DYEW.

Just as SanderO (not having a go at him) was adding his "subplot" as to how WTC7 fell, he was missing the point that NIST claimed that "office fires" and "office fires" alone were the culprit. Anything else is irrelevant.

Just as CIT uncovered the NOC witnesses, any other claims regarding "missiles", "NOC impact" and "A3 Skywarrior" claims are irrelevant. Speculation can be good but if there's no evidence, what's the point?
Let tptb explain.

Just as Pilots found the major discrepancies in the alleged FDR for "Flight 77", Warren Stutt and his "data" are irrelevant. The NTSB hasn't changed its stance one iota. Let them explain.

Just as Rob found that "Flight 175" was supposed to have flown way over its limitations and that ACARS messages deciphered for the FBI are unambiguous in that it (and "Flight 93") were nowhere near the alleged crash sites, (again) Stutt's and GL's opinions are meaningless. Let them explain.

Thing is, imagine newcomers to this information are actually posed the dilemma that "oh, by the way, that was a hologram you saw hitting the towers" and/or "there were actually 2 planes/1 plane plus missile involved in the Pentagon op".

Unfounded speculation is as helpful as a chocolate fireguard. It's healthy between truthseekers but trying to tie it all up in one neat bundle as fact is another matter.

Posted by: Tamborine man Mar 24 2012, 11:35 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 22 2012, 09:54 PM) *
Spot on DYEW.

Just as SanderO (not having a go at him) was adding his "subplot" as to how WTC7 fell, he was missing the point that NIST claimed that "office fires" and "office fires" alone were the culprit. Anything else is irrelevant.

Just as CIT uncovered the NOC witnesses, any other claims regarding "missiles", "NOC impact" and "A3 Skywarrior" claims are irrelevant. Speculation can be good but if there's no evidence, what's the point?
Let tptb explain.

Just as Pilots found the major discrepancies in the alleged FDR for "Flight 77", Warren Stutt and his "data" are irrelevant. The NTSB hasn't changed its stance one iota. Let them explain.

Just as Rob found that "Flight 175" was supposed to have flown way over its limitations and that ACARS messages deciphered for the FBI are unambiguous in that it (and "Flight 93") were nowhere near the alleged crash sites, (again) Stutt's and GL's opinions are meaningless. Let them explain.

Thing is, imagine newcomers to this information are actually posed the dilemma that "oh, by the way, that was a hologram you saw hitting the towers" and/or "there were actually 2 planes/1 plane plus missile involved in the Pentagon op".

Unfounded speculation is as helpful as a chocolate fireguard. It's healthy between truthseekers but trying to tie it all up in one neat bundle as fact is another matter.



I too agree with DYEW, and as i said earlier, it deserves it own scrutiny and investigation.
It's definitely a dicey subject, and it seems like people are too afraid to think the problem
through to its conclusion and therefore treat it as a far too hot potato. I got no such fear.

On another forum, i joined a discussion about 'infinity'. The OP and others maintained infinity
to be only a concept used to describe f.ex. the rationals between zero and 1.
I argued that infinity, together with its inseparable companion eternity, should never be used
in connection with math and numbers, as these two terms describe absolute reality, and hence
could never be confined within two limits. I argued that as Cosmos is it, so are these two realities
completely without a beginning and without an end. They have always existed, and will always
exist, endlessly and boundlessly.
Would have liked to say more, but after that, the thread came to a complete stop. It 'died' there
and then. Not a word more after 18 pages!

"Arr well, such is life", said Ned Kelly, when they put the robe around his neck .......

Cheers



".......
Truly, I ask of you: what do you fear? Fear you the evil words?
Fear you to be hurt by stones which are cast upon you? Do you
not know that a child's arm reacheth but short? Guide the child
and rebuke it, for a child's hurling of stones and evil words
should not hinder that you speak for truth and justice.
......."

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 24 2012, 11:52 PM

I'm not afraid to discuss it.

I've directly addressed the subject a few posts ago and nobody has answered it.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804272


Posted by: Tamborine man Mar 25 2012, 04:30 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 23 2012, 02:52 AM) *
I'm not afraid to discuss it.

I've directly addressed the subject a few posts ago and nobody has answered it.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804272



I never doubted you for a moment, OSS!

So, no planes enter the towers (is my understanding), and yet we see planes enter!!

I personally think that we all have been made 'victims' to the greatest hoax and the
greatest "illusion" this world has ever seen - since perhaps the so-called 'moon landing'.

'Something' strange happened atop the Woolworth building, that I personally think warrants
yet more investigation:

http://www.orbwar.com/woolworth/

(I'm not into the ufo and orb bit, so please ignore that part!)

And I think also that one maybe should again familiarize oneself with what actually lies
behind 'the Indian rope trick', as this gentleman gives quite a good explanation about:



Fast forward to 9:00 and end it at 15:00. The rest is not important!

Cheers


Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 25 2012, 10:12 AM

I think the 9/11 cartel are given too much credit.

They've been running the show/shadow government for decades. Their methods have always been the same.

Waco - mass murder, MSM complicity, denial, denial, more MSM complicity, denial, a corrupt forensics lab, corrupt senate, corrupt FBI/ATF, denial, denial, more MSM complicity and blackening the name of any witness who counters the official story and blanket censorship. Destruction and removal of the "crime scene". And denial.

TWA800 - as above but with the gall to ignore all witnesses (on the ground and in the air), their own radar data and whistleblowers. Again topped off with denial and MSM complicity.

Oklahoma - as above, with the added denial of physical evidence and the actual murder of witnesses. Denial from the MSM of early reports of secondary devices. Withholding of video evidence. Destruction and removal of the "crime scene". Denial and MSM complicity.

9/11 - as above, only this event was to be stage managed by MSM (at the top) from the beginning. The official story, disinfo and soundbites to suckerpunch an already gullible and pathetic public. Then denial, denial, denial. Withheld video evidence. Second hand denial of all witnesses to explosions in Manhattan and the flightpaths in Arlington and Shankesville. Destruction and removal of "crime scenes".

There was no great "masterplan". The military ops and subsequent control of information, yes, but that's it. They've enabled this event and OCT script to have multiple layers that can morph but basically, they've been making shit up as and when necessary.

Couple the above with them realizing that they can get away with anything if they have the media and a dumbed down population. Job done. No need for Jedi mind tricks.

TM, what do you make of the post I made with all of those named photographers? Particularly Carmen Taylor? And the explosion preimpact on Tower 1?

Posted by: amazed! Mar 25 2012, 11:40 AM

OSS

Thanks so much for those pictures. Years ago I had seen some of them, but thought maybe I was losing my mind. The 'pumpshitout' link did not work, but the others did.

My interpretation is that the exoskeleton of the towers would have allowed what we see--the airplane 'melting' into the structure. With I think 2 foot wide windows, with about 40 inch spacing, that was a type of steel seive on a large scale.

When one has all the assets the perps did, and the story line is that airliners hit the towers, then why the hell NOT use real airplanes?

Anyway, thanks again for refreshing my memory.

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 25 2012, 11:58 AM

CODE
Http://www.pumpshitout.com/audio/ct_101407.mp3


You have to eliminate the "sh". biggrin.gif

It's worth the listen. She's allegedly a hospital auditor and her story in no way sounds scripted to me.

I couldn't even attempt to explain the penetration but there were definitely aircraft involved.

Posted by: amazed! Mar 25 2012, 02:57 PM

I could not get an interview with her OSS. What I got was a video played to banjo music about her and some guy who took pictures from a tourist boat at Battery Park. The piece suggested she and the man were plants.

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 25 2012, 04:08 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 25 2012, 07:57 PM) *
I could not get an interview with her OSS. What I got was a video played to banjo music about her and some guy who took pictures from a tourist boat at Battery Park. The piece suggested she and the man were plants.


I can hear it okay (it's a recorded phonecall).

I will say though that I once tried to listen to another interview of his and I kept getting a "banjo" with some techno music crap. He must be watching this thread and messing with it? dunno.gif

Posted by: Tamborine man Mar 25 2012, 11:39 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 23 2012, 01:12 PM) *
I think the 9/11 cartel are given too much credit.

They've been running the show/shadow government for decades. Their methods have always been the same.


Yes far too much! I don't give them anything at all.
As have now been proven far far beyond even the tiniest shadow of doubt - that we all survive 'death' -
these people have nothing to look forward to, except some extremely uncomfortable questions they will
have to answer with utmost truthfulness and sincerity, when they return home to their respective spheres
in the transcendental world. I feel truly sorry for the poor buggers!

QUOTE
Waco - mass murder, MSM complicity, denial, denial, more MSM complicity, denial, a corrupt forensics lab, corrupt senate, corrupt FBI/ATF, denial, denial, more MSM complicity and blackening the name of any witness who counters the official story and blanket censorship. Destruction and removal of the "crime scene". And denial.

TWA800 - as above but with the gall to ignore all witnesses (on the ground and in the air), their own radar data and whistleblowers. Again topped off with denial and MSM complicity.

Oklahoma - as above, with the added denial of physical evidence and the actual murder of witnesses. Denial from the MSM of early reports of secondary devices. Withholding of video evidence. Destruction and removal of the "crime scene". Denial and MSM complicity.

9/11 - as above, only this event was to be stage managed by MSM (at the top) from the beginning. The official story, disinfo and soundbites to suckerpunch an already gullible and pathetic public. Then denial, denial, denial. Withheld video evidence. Second hand denial of all witnesses to explosions in Manhattan and the flightpaths in Arlington and Shankesville. Destruction and removal of "crime scenes".

There was no great "masterplan". The military ops and subsequent control of information, yes, but that's it. They've enabled this event and OCT script to have multiple layers that can morph but basically, they've been making shit up as and when necessary.

Couple the above with them realizing that they can get away with anything if they have the media and a dumbed down population. Job done. No need for Jedi mind tricks.


Yes, horrific stuff. As said above, the - for them - terrible fact is that they will never get away with anything.
True Justice will one day overtake them. There's no escape. They will not be able to progress further until
they have given back absolutely everything they unlawfully have taken, both of human lives and of all other
kinds of more physical valuables.

QUOTE
TM, what do you make of the post I made with all of those named photographers? Particularly Carmen Taylor? And the explosion preimpact on Tower 1?


Well i never trusted that Hezarkhani fellow for one minute. Very shady character i thought!
Carmen Taylor's long question and answer sessions with the pumpshitout crowd last year,
gave me nothing but 'nausea' .....actually. There are too many 'abnormalities' in her account,
imho!

Apart from the 'grand illusion', i think it's clear that CGI has been employed at strategic places
here and there. Whether it was used in connection with the pre-impact flash i do not know, but
the possibility is there, for whatever mischievous trick they could use to mislead and misdirect
us, i suppose! One can only speculate at this point, unfortunately ....

Cheers

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 26 2012, 01:29 PM

When Tamborine man has done such an excellent job of summarizing my position (in post #90), I don't understand why anyone here wants to deny the use of "video fakery" when what I mean by that phrase is any use of video footage to convey a false impression, which means that, since Pilots has confirmed that the plane shown in the footage was flying at an aerodynamically impossible speed, we already know that video fakery was involved. And since Pilots has also confirmed that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, how can anyone deny it?

Rob Balsamo, of all people, interprets my point about "the impossible speed" for a standard Boeing 767 as a denial that any aircraft could attain that speed at that altitude--and offers an F-14 "Tomcat" as a counter- example. But I was not making that point at all. And he insists that "video fakery" is inconsistent with the witnesses who report having seen a plane, which is not the case, either. The use of CGIs or of video compositing would be inconsistent with the witness reports, but not something that looked like a real plane but was not.

Since I have made these points many times, I am baffled by the persistent failure to acknowledge even that "video fakery" does not mean that all of those who reported seeing a plane were wrong. It does require that what they saw was something they took to be a real plane but was not a real plane, since no real plane could perform the feats of this plane (enter Rob Balsamo, showing that a "real plane" could fly as fast as the one shown in the videos), in particular, by entering the building effortlessly in violation of Newton's laws.

Woody and Aldo want to attack some other position and claim that it is mine. I have no idea what inspires them to do that, because it is dishonest and unprofessional on their part. They want to hold onto some old position that they loved to hate, but it is seriously misleading to attack me for positions that I may or may not hold--especially when not only have I laid out my position very clearly but Tamorine man has offered an excellent presentation of what I have in mind: none of the "official planes" crashed at any of those 4 sites.

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?

Perhaps no evidence more powerfully undermines the "official account" of 9/11 than what we know about those four flights and their crash sites. Given the complete absence of any deceleration when "Flight 175" enters the South Tower together with the witness reports, I am trying to figure out what happened (how it was done), which, so far as I can see, is only explainable by the use of something that looked like a plane but was not a plane, namely, the projection of the image of a plane, which could perform impossible feats:

(1) Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly that day, according to BTS records, which I reproduce in my articleds;

(2) The planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were not de-registered by the FAA until 28 September 2005, by FAA Registration records, which I also reproduce in my articles;

(3) So how can planes that were not in the air have crashed?; and,

(4) How can planes that crashed have still been in the air four years later?

(5) Pilots for 9/11 Truth has determined that Flight 93 was in the air but over Urana, IL, at the time it was supposed to be crashing in Shanksville, as you can verify at http://pilotsfor911truth.org.

(6) Pilots of 9/11 Truth has also determined that Flight 175 was in the air but over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was supposed to be effortlessly entering the South Tower, as you can also verify at Pilots' home page.

(7) The plane shown in the videos was traveling at an aerodynamically impossible speed for a standard 767 and therefore cannot have been a standard 767, which confirms the use of video fakery.

(8) The plane in the videos enters the South Tower in violation of Newton's laws: it should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground.

(9) None of that happened, where an engine component found at Church & Murray was obviously planted and did not even come from a 767, as my articles have also explained.

(10) If we take the witness reports seriously, as I do, then they saw something that looked like a real plane but was performing feats that no real plane could perform.

From that evidence, I infer that what we are seeing in those videos appears to have been the projection of a sophisticated hologram. What else could it possibly be consistent with (1) through (10)? I am reminded of the adage, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." This appears to be a perfect illustration of what initially (before considering the evidence) has a very low probability, yet subsequently (after considering the evidence) has to have been what happened.

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. I not only taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning but my Ph.D. is in the history and the philosophy of science. No real object can violate the laws of physics, of engineering and of aerodynamics, which includes real Boeing 767s. Here are studies that bring together the evidence about all 4 crash sites, where another focuses on Flight 77 and the third on Flight 93:

“9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/

“9/11: The official account of the Pentagon attach is a fantasy” (with Dennis Cimino)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/13/911-the-official-account-of-the-pentagon-attack-is-a-fantasy/

“The 9/11 Passenger Paradox: What happened to Flight 93?” (with Dean Hartwell)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/15/the-911-passenger-paradox-what-happened-to-flight-93/

Flight 93, by the way, was not only over Pittsburgh at the time of its effortless entry into the South Tower, but, as John Lear has observed, has no strobe lights; as Ben Collet has observed, casts no shadows; and as the fourth of these videos displays, has a left wing that disappears and reappears in flight. I simply do not understand how anyone who takes the time to view these videos could not appreciate that we are dealing with something that admittedly looks like a real plane but cannot possibly be a real plane. Check them out:

9/11 Fake: Media Make Believe (bee-lie-live) - YouTube

► 7:57► 7:57
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFqCU4VdFqo
Oct 6, 2010 - 8 min - Uploaded by FringeReality
Have you ever played physics games, like any Burnout games, Little Big Planet, Armadillo Run or whatever...? 1 ...

Totally fake! But you would still believe it! - YouTube

► 6:02► 6:02
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i5v_vioaMU
Oct 5, 2010 - 6 min - Uploaded by FringeReality
Yes you would! 1. Planes are made of light materials like aluminum and fiberglass. Think of them as long beer ...

Theory of Ghostplane - YouTube

► 5:07► 5:07
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc
Jul 25, 2008 - 5 min - Uploaded by CollinAlexander
http://psy-opera.com "9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera" is the Ultimate 9/11 Truth movie, and it has begun ...

PROOF "PLANE" WAS HOLOGRAM or CGI - YouTube

► 2:41► 2:41
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVaC5SH_B6o
Jun 13, 2010 - 3 min - Uploaded by AMolvar
Watch carefully, especially the left wing. All I have done is slow down this video, zoom in, and freeze some ...

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Mar 23 2012, 01:39 AM) *
Com'on people be real now, please!

If NPT simply means that none of the 'official' planes crashed at either locations, then I'm certainly also a NPT adherent and supporter.

Please try to use your imagination to the fullest. Regarding second tower, we see on all videos a plane slicing into the building effortlessly.

No resistance by the steel columns nor the steel spandrel plates or the concrete floors behind the plates is offered to any of the weaker parts of the airplane, such as the wingtips and the horizontal and vertical stabilizers. None whatsoever.

But if that's not enough, next we come to the truly bizarre and totally mad:

In the instant the plane has fully penetrated the facade it comes to an abrupt halt!!??

We know this, because the split second after the plane disappears into the building, a big fireball takes shape on the right side of the building 15 – 20 meters along from the impact facade. Not halfway, not ¾ way into the building, but within the first quarter, or third, of the way in!

A fireball also forms outside of the entry hole.

We also know (because of the impact hole and the alleged direction the plane flew), that apart from the port side wing, most of the plane would have missed the center core of the building, and hence should have continued more or less partly intact (because of the floors only) on its over 800 km/h speed through the open office spaces, impacting the side wall and the far end wall, a mere 64 meters away from the
entry opening – or ca. 26 meters away from the 'undamaged' nose of the plane!! But (ignoring everything about the so-called "nosecone") none of this happened!

No further impact (now from the inside of the tower) was visible either from the right side wall or from the North end wall in any of the videos or photos we have seen of the exterior of the building. No outward bulging whatsoever of the walls, is seen anywhere!

The plane apparently stopped, dead in its track, just inside the perimeter wall!

I truly hope that not one single member of PF9/11T will even dream of entertaining this idea that such insanity could have taken place

…….Please!!!!

Let us instead gladly give this preposterous lunacy to the 'loyalists', the shills, the 'paid agents' and their 'research assistants', together with the rest of the truly ignorant and hopelessly immature twerps amongst them.

The planes seen and witnessed in the skies that day is a completely different story that deserves its own close scrutiny and investigation, and which has already for a long period admirably been started by many good people.

NPT therefore - seen in the Right Light - is an absolute fact as far as I'm concerned, and should naturally be supported by all other just and wise people! wink.gif

Cheers

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 26 2012, 01:51 PM

And, in anticipation of those who will claim there was some virtually imperceptible deceleration, let me observe that what I am talking about is not subtle: the velocity of (most of) the plane should have dropped to zero!

There are those who like to cite the Sandia experiment as showing that the plane might have blown into very tiny pieces. But nothing like that happens at the South Tower--and that plane did not penetrate the barrier!

The velocity of the Sandia plane drops to zero, just as the velocity of Flight 175 should have dropped to zero --and would have, were we dealing with a real plane! But we are dealing with the image of a real plane, which can perform feats no real plane can perform.

I would also like to remind everyone of http://nomoregames.net/2008/06/13/311/, which offers a consolidation of Newton's laws of motion as they apply to the effortless entry of Flight 175 into the South Tower as observed in these videos:

"Joe’s Law is a consolidation, into one law, of Isaac Newton’s three laws of motion, which are: 1. An object in motion remains in motion until acted upon by a force. 2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force until the force is removed. 3. Every action creates an opposite an equal reaction. I concocted Joe’s Law in order to destroy the BIG LIE and get to the truth. Thusly, Joe’s Law states: 'AIRPLANES DON’T MELD INTO STEEL AND CONCRETE BUILDINGS, THEY CRASH AGAINST THEM!'"

Joe also observes, "The Media’s defense will be: “We didn’t fake these videos, we merely bought them, believing them to be actual videos of the catastrophe as it occurred!” The question now is: When this fakery is exposed, will the little people still believe THE BIG LIE? For those of you searching for the truth, I am offering a reward of $5000 to anyone who can provide me with a video of an airliner that crashes into WTC2 without violating Joe’s Law. Proof of date of origination must be provided." Here's a chance to make $5000!

And for those who would like to see what I mean by "inference to the best explanation", see "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", which I published in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007) and http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm. I regard Pilots as the most important research society investigating 9/11. There is no good reason that we should not be natural allies. I am marshaling the available evidence to fashion coherent arguments about what happened on 9/11, where Pilots have made some exceptionally important contributions toward that goal.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 26 2012, 02:02 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 26 2012, 01:29 PM) *
...since Pilots has confirmed that the plane shown in the footage was flying at an aerodynamically impossible speed, we already know that video fakery was involved..


Wrong.

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

Re-read the answer I gave to your question http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804182. I'll bold and underline it since it is clear you missed it the first 3 times (via email, on facebook, and on this forum).



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".



Read it three more times Jim. Hopefully it sinks in. Let me know if you need me to increase the font size if you are still having trouble reading the above statement.

In other words Jim. Aircraft are modified all the time for increased performance. Modifications which cannot be detected on a blurry youtube video, or even on close inspection without opening up cowlings, wing panels.. .etc. If we are to theorize, it is quite possible the 767-200 observed in the videos was modified (read: not standard)... especially considering the fact that the FBI refuses to provide positive identification of the aircraft via the numerous aircraft parts recovered in lower Manhattan. If I were you, I would explore this route first before thinking all those videos were faked... and all the witnesses lying or mistaken, including the many pilots who i know personally that watched the aircraft hit the WTC, from JFK and EWR with their own naked eyes.



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 26 2012, 01:29 PM) *
Rob Balsamo, of all people, interprets my point about "the impossible speed" for a standard Boeing 767 as a denial that any aircraft could attain that speed at that altitude--



"So it is the position of Rob Balsamo, the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, that a real plane can not only travel faster than a standard Boeing 767 at 700-1,000' foot altitude...." - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804223

"What witnesses reported seeing hit the South Tower CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE, BECAUSE IT WAS PERFORMING FEATS THAT NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM." - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804215


Contradict yourself much?


All I did was show Jim Fetzer (through a quick search)... that yes... a "real plane" could perform those "feats" and speeds "faster than a Boeing 767 at 700- 1,000'" .... and then some. I also http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804226 that I do not believe an F-14 hit the South tower.


The rest of your post I didn't bother to read. Stop using our work to further your theories Jim.

Regards.

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 26 2012, 03:33 PM

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

Posted by: elreb Mar 26 2012, 06:04 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 26 2012, 08:02 AM) *
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. 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… 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”

Posted by: 23investigator Mar 26 2012, 07:24 PM

[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




Posted by: mrmitosis Mar 26 2012, 07:57 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 26 2012, 12:29 PM) *
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.

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 26 2012, 12:29 PM) *
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.

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 26 2012, 09:48 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Mar 26 2012, 11:04 PM) *
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. 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… 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.

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 26 2012, 10:30 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer)
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/2005/09/10/ga_jarjean_felton.pdf

QUOTE
...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/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110140.PDF

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


Firefighter Scott Holowach

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110114.PDF

QUOTE
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

QUOTE
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/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110323.PDF

QUOTE
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/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110396.PDF

QUOTE
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/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110431.PDF

QUOTE
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/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110485.PDF

QUOTE
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/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110076.PDF

QUOTE
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/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110286.PDF

QUOTE
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

QUOTE
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

QUOTE
"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

QUOTE
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.













Posted by: elreb Mar 26 2012, 11:09 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 26 2012, 03:48 PM) *
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!


Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 27 2012, 06:30 AM

QUOTE (elreb @ Mar 27 2012, 04:09 AM) *
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.

Posted by: Tamborine man Mar 27 2012, 07:47 AM

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!

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 27 2012, 08:33 AM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Mar 25 2012, 10:47 AM) *
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!

Posted by: 23investigator Mar 27 2012, 09:10 AM

[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

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 27 2012, 09:26 AM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Mar 27 2012, 12:47 PM) *
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.


QUOTE ™
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!

QUOTE ™
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



Posted by: jfetzer Mar 27 2012, 09:38 AM

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.

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 26 2012, 09:30 PM) *
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/2005/09/10/ga_jarjean_felton.pdf



FIREFIGHTER THOMAS GABY

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110140.PDF



Firefighter Scott Holowach

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110114.PDF



A very detailed, accessible witness..

Bruce Kratofil




Firefighter James Murphy

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110323.PDF



FIREFIGHTER ROBERT NORRIS

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110396.PDF




BATTALION CHIEF BRIAN O'FLAHERTY (FDNY)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110431.PDF




PARAMEDIC JOEL PIERCE

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110485.PDF




EMS CAPTAIN MARK STONE

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110076.PDF




FIREFIGHTER JOSEPH SULLIVAN

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/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.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 27 2012, 09:46 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 27 2012, 09:38 AM) *
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 http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed.

Furthermore, you are basing your whole theory on your belief that an airliner is comparable to an http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804228.


Jim, an airliner is http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804229 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.


QUOTE
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 http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Altimetry.aspx#EquivalentAirspeed.

@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.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 27 2012, 10:02 AM

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 http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-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, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-911-photos-released.html.)

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.

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Mar 27 2012, 06:47 AM) *
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!

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 27 2012, 10:10 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 27 2012, 10:02 AM) *
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.

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 27 2012, 10:15 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 25 2012, 12:38 PM) *
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.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 27 2012, 10:17 AM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 27 2012, 10:15 AM) *
jim, the velocity aspect has been addressed elsewhere.


Jim doesnt even know the velocity based on the http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed.

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 27 2012, 10:19 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer)
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.

Posted by: Tamborine man Mar 27 2012, 10:33 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 25 2012, 12:26 PM) *
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.

QUOTE
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.

QUOTE
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!


QUOTE
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.

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


No, not really, OSS!

QUOTE
Peace

OSS


Peace to you too, buddy -

Cheers

Posted by: amazed! Mar 27 2012, 11:09 AM

Well put Rob.

Jim

I don't question the evidence you cite, I question the conclusions you draw from that evidence.

I accept that video fakery must have happened because so many people more knowledgeable than I make that claim.

But video fakery or not, there is EVIDENCE that at least 1 Boeing was present in Manhattan that day and struck the tower.

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 27 2012, 11:21 AM

huh.gif

You know what? Brian Good and Chris Sarns used to play wordgames with me for weeks on end. They never liked nitty gritty details either and liked to have all eventualities covered no matter how illogical.

The witnesses saw a "plane" according to you but the images and videos are fake?

Edit:

I'm still trying to digest this...

QUOTE
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!


The later videos I posted were of a plane in flight and impact. I made the same effort in identifying witnesses who saw the plane in flight and who are documented/accessible.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 27 2012, 02:26 PM

Well, let me see what I can do with this. The position your are attributing to me is not my
position but an exaggerated caricature. In reference to http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/,
I adduce proof that all four of the crash sites were fabricated, but in very different ways, and I
offer evidence, some of which has been established by Pilots and is featured on its home page:

(1) Flight 93 was not deregistered by the FAA until 28 September 2005 and, as Pilots has shown,
was in the air on 9/11 but was far removed from its alleged crash site at Shanksville, PA, where,
if Pilots have done their research properly, was actually over Urbana, IL, at the time. I advance
observations by reporters and photographic proof that no plane crashed in Shanksville on 9/11.

(2) Flight 11 was not even scheduled for departure that day, according to BTS records. That it
did not hit the North Tower is substantiated by a time-sequence of frames from the Naudet Bros.
video and that there are four impact points, which turn from an extended "Z" into an elongated
"V". There is no wind turbulence and the damage to the facade displays additional anomalies.

(3) Flight 77 was also not scheduled for departure that day, according to BTS records. The FDR
data that Pilots received corresponds to a plane on a different approach that appears to have
flown toward the building but then swerved over it, as the trucker buddy of a friend of mine in
JFK research advised me. The proof that no plane hit the building is abundant and compelling.

(4) Flight 175 was not deregistered by the FAA until 28 September 2005 and, as Pilots has shown,
was in the air on 9/11 but according to Pilots, was far removed from its alleged effortless entry into
the South Tower, was in violation of Newton's laws, and over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time. Is is not
"theory" to conclude that it cannot have been entering the South Tower if it was over Pittsburgh.

This is the "bare bones" of the NPT, which maintains that none of the planes that, according to the
official account, actually crashed at their alleged "crash sites". Diffferent forms of fakery appear to
have been used at each site, where the interesting cases are Flight 11 (simulated by what seems to
have been an arrangement of four UAVs) and Flight 175 (simulated by a sophisticated hologram).

Since Flight 175 is the most hotly contested, let me immediately observe that, if Flight 175 WAS
over Pittsburgh at the time, then some other "plane" had to have been captured by the videos,
but since they have been advanced a proof of the official account, we are therefore encountering
some kind of video fakery, which is the use of videos to convey false impressions (about 9/11).

The argument for the use of a hologram is derived as follows. The impossible entry would only
have been impossible for a real plane but not for the image of a real plane. The use of CGIs or
of video compositing would have affected the broadcast images, but not what the eyewitneeses
reported. The more weight we give to the witness reports, the stronger the case for a hologram.

None of the witnesses need to have been lying. They reported seeing "a plane", which, since it
was performing feats that no real plane could perform, cannot have been a real plane. It follows
that they were were reporting observing what they took to be a real plane, but it was not in fact
a real plane, because a real plane would have crumpled on impact, etc., but there was no impact.

I do not understand why, when I have explained this many times now, so many of you are going
out of your way to misrepresent my position. That it has to have been a hologram is reinforced
by the considerations that it has no strobe lights (as John Lear observed), it casts no shadow (as
Ben Collet has noticed), and its left wing disappears and then reappears (as my 4th video shows).

While it is true that a "real plane" could have traveled as fast as this one at that altitude, it could
not have been a standard Boeing 767, which makes this video fakery, once again. Remember the
admonition of Sherlock Holmes when he observed, "When you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth!" That fits Flight 175 to a "t"!

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 27 2012, 09:19 AM) *
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.


Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 27 2012, 03:39 PM

Jim's posts are now on indefinite mod preview requiring approval due to his continued evasions of my posts.

Jim, none of your further posts will be approved here if you continue your evasion of my posts.

Welcome to my house.

Show some respect, or I show you the door.

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 27 2012, 04:04 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 25 2012, 05:26 PM) *
premise:
While it is true that a "real plane" could have traveled as fast as this one at that altitude, it could
not have been a standard Boeing 767,

conclusion:
which makes this video fakery, once again.


i'm ok w/ your premise. i'm not ok w/ your conclusion.

i've just never heard of a hologram showing up on radar...i write science fiction, but that would require some real work on my part.

'The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible.' ~Mark Twain

Posted by: tit2 Mar 27 2012, 04:22 PM

I placed below two videos of the attack of the south tower, a picture of the damage of the north tower and another image showing a large column of black smoke coming from the impact zone of the twin towers. In both videos one sees and one hears the sound of the aircraft approaching the south tower, and at the impact of this aircraft, one sees a classical jet fuel explosion. The damages, in the image of the north tower, match perfectly the shape of the aircraft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XELamUnF0EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iGYVh7HZo8

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/summaryimages/wtc1holenew.jpg

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01984/911_1984343c.jpg

All these elements, which prove that the twin towers were hit by aircrafts are absent for the pentagon attack. In particular, the images of the explosion on the Pentagon seem to show a detonation of explosives, not a jet fuel explosion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcQBp264CME

Yet if a technology using holograms and other means was used to imitate perfectly the impact of a plane and its consequences on the Twin Towers, the same technology should have been used to imitate, similarly, the impact of an aircraft on the pentagon, which is not the case. In reality the twin towers were hit by large aircrafts, while for the attack on the Pentagon, many witnesses have only reported the sound of explosives detonation at the time of the alleged impact of the aircraft. What is normal because unlike the twin towers, it wasn't probably possible to run electronically, without a pilot in the cockpit, a large military aircraft, at high speed, on the first floor of the Pentagon.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 27 2012, 04:43 PM

Rob has written to me and posted that I am not going to be allowed to continue participating in this forum unless I respond to his posts. Frankly, I have never heard of any such requirement, but since I have implicitly replied to him several times, let me be more explicit here. In my opinion, Rob has displayed misunderstanding of (what I take to be) NPT and has offered several faulty analogies and bad reasons for rejecting it as I shall explain. Rob's objections are in bold.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 27 2012, 08:46 AM) *
Jim, for someone who claims to have done such an extraordinary amount of research on this topic, you may want to revisit the actual http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed.

What I have said (based upon Pilots own study) is that a standard Boeing 767 could not have attained the speed shown in the videos of Flight 175 heading toward the South Tower. Indeed, Pilots study confirms:

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have further studied if a 767 could continue controlled flight at such reported speeds. According to the NTSB, EA990 wreckage was found in two distinct debris fields, indicating in-flight structural failure which has been determined to have occurred a few seconds after recording peak speed. Based on EA990, it is impossible for the alleged United 175 to have continued controlled flight at more than 85 knots over the speed which failed the structure of EA990.


Furthermore, you are basing your whole theory on your belief that an airliner is comparable to an http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804228.

Since the comparison to an empty coke can is only an analogy and far from "my whole theory", Rob has missed the boat, big time! My "whole theory" is based upon the physical impossibility of physical objects (other than microscopic particles) to violate Newton's laws of motion, that the "plane" shown in the videos does just that, which means that we are observing physically impossible events.

The comparison of a Boeing 767--or any commercial carrier--to an empty coke can, moreover, is clearly more defensible than comparing it to a full can of coke, so I am a bit taken aback by this complaint. The fuselage of an airline is made of aluminum, as is an empty can of coke. An airplane has a definite structure, but so does a can of coke. That they are similar in some respects, however, is not enough.

Analogies are faulty when the entities being compared, say, A and B, which are supposed to be sufficiently similar to warrant the further inference that, because A has properties a, b, c, and d, since B has properties a, b, and c, it therefore (or probably) also has property d. But analogies are faulty when there are more differences than similarities or few but crucial differences or such arguments are taken to be conclusive.

For a full can of coke to be a suitable comparison, an airliner would have to be full of water, say, rather than mostly air. There are many faulty comparisons, so perhaps Rob can enlighten me as to why he believes that his comparison to a can full of coke is appropriate. This strikes be as rather bizarre, since, while there are some similarities, this would be a crucial difference that undermines the analogy.

I would also observe that the same is true of the Sandia experiment. Interestingly, I understand that plane was full of water. Notice, in particular, that the Sandia plane has its velocity drop to zero and is blown apart in every direction. Neither occurred to Flight 175 as it is represented in these videos, which means that this comparison is also faulty, in this case because there are more differences than similarities between them.

Jim, an airliner is http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804229 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.

I have heard many comparisons to an empty coke can. There is nothing "disingeuous" or "dishonest" about it, which I find to be an extraordinary and completely unwarranted allegation. If anything should be obvious here, it is that I believe everything that I write. I may be wrong on some points, but I cannot be dishonest. I think this is another conceptual confusion on your part, Rob, of which you have displayed several.

One was the response to my remark about "performing feats that no real plane could perform" in reference to the videos of Flight 175. I was clearly talking about a plane of that kind, a Boeing 175, which meant that your counter-example (of an F-14 "Tomcat") was beside the point. You were deliberately misinterpreting my remark, which may or may not have displayed "intellectual dishonesty" on your part.

In addition, in response to my repeated explanations about NPT--and even asking you to explain what you mean by "NPT", you have repeatedly rejected it on the basis of having friends who observed "a plane" en route to the South Tower. And that seems to remain your position to this day, since you have given no indication of understanding that NPT, as I define it, is consistent with those witness reports.

You and Aldo seem fixated on positions that others have advanced and to have ignored the position that I have spelled out here and carefully defined. As I have explained, what those witnesses reported seeing must have looked like a plane, but could not be a real plane, since no real plane could have entered the South Tower in violation of Newton's laws without crumpling, its wings falling off, and such.

Another faulty analogy would be compare a commercial carrier as comparable to a bullet. But a bullet is a solid lead object, not an open aluminum tube. Your introduction of a full can of coke strikes me as moving in the direction of a comparison with a bullet, which I should hope you an appreciate is completely wrong. I
really don't see what traction you are gaining by denying the appropriate analogy with an empty coke can.

I am also puzzled at your apparent ignorance of Newton's laws. According to the third law, the impact of a plane moving at 500 mph on a stationary building would be the same as that of a building moving at 500 mph hitting a stationary plane. Surely you can appreciate that the effects on this second scenario would be
devastating. But the effects on the first scenario would be precisely the same as the effects on the second.

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 http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Altimetry.aspx#EquivalentAirspeed.


This apparently is an effort by Rob to demonstrate his superiority at calculating differences in air speed at different altitudes. No doubt, he is better at that than am I. The question that arises is whether any of my arguments depend upon such a transformation. If it is not the case that the cruising speed of a Boding 767 at 35,000' is 560 and that that speed would be impossible at 700-1,000', then it's relevant; otherwise, not.

@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.


Posted by: amazed! Mar 27 2012, 04:45 PM

Jim

Hoping that you will acknowledge Rob's posts, and thus be able to respond to this....

As is such a common case on the internet, I think perhaps semantics or unprecise language is part of the problem.

I thought years ago the NPT term had been further specified: NPT meaning no Boeings at WTC, because ANYBODY who pays attention knows there was no Boeing at either Shanksville or Pentagon.

As for you point about 4 UAVs in formation striking the tower, that seems beyond ludicrous to me. Formation flying requires alot of skill, AND good visual on the lead ship. I'm no expert on UAVs, but that seems totally impossible.

I could entertain the hologram thing, IF ONLY somebody could show me where such equipment exists to have such a real-looking hologram projected into the space of Manhattan. It seems honest debate would require at least a nibbler on where on earth such equipment exists, with perhaps examples of what its images look like.

You present two VERY long shots here.

Posted by: mrmitosis Mar 27 2012, 07:04 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 27 2012, 01:26 PM) *
While it is true that a "real plane" could have traveled as fast as this one at that altitude, it could
not have been a standard Boeing 767, which makes this video fakery, once again.


Which person on this thread has said it was a standard 767?

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 27 2012, 01:26 PM) *
Remember the admonition of Sherlock Holmes when he observed, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth!"


Before contemplating the improbable, let alone eliminating the impossible, how about addressing the obvious? You set a low bar for post-tertiary academic standards, Jim. If I were one of your philosophy students, I'd be demanding a refund.

Posted by: kawika Mar 27 2012, 07:11 PM

I can't debate the plane entering the building seamlessly, but others have explained that this is possible.

I'll grant you the lack of fuel explosion at the entry point, but that too may be a physics problem. I find it very curious. Comparing the Tower with steel and glass openings is not the same as the Pentagon with a mostly masonry wall.

The place I am totally baffled is how this CGI image gets projected correctly into numerous vantage point cameras, both film and digital. How does Evan Fairbanks' video align itself with the background and with other photographers over in Brooklyn?

How could the long distance (5 miles out) helicopter footage take into account every aspect?

A lot of people use the moon hoax as an example, but that was a single image projected on TV sets. Nobody witnessed the event for comparison.

If all of the photographers who captured a plane headed for WTC2 and all the witnesses who testified they saw it strike WTC2 were faking it, what is their incentive? How were they compensated? When? Who gave them their script and when did they rehearse their lines? How would they know what questions would be asked of them?

You see the trouble this causes? There are an awful lot of difficult questions to ponder before I can accept any CGI theory.

What I find more compelling is the incomplete nature of the video records with their conspicuous edits right where the action gets interesting. How come there are no SW views of the impact at WTC2?

At this point I have to stick with the non-commercial plane being remotely controlled explanation. Holograms are just too hard to comprehend.

Posted by: 23investigator Mar 27 2012, 07:24 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 27 2012, 11:16 PM) *
@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.



Dear Mr Balsamo

I know how touchy you are about this, believe me it has not been done deliberately, in fact every effort has been made to avoid it, perhaps you could point out what has been done wrong, to avoid upsetting you again.

It would have been nice to have received your response directly, not 'plugged' on the bottom of another person's post.

There is no connection with that person in the least, in fact, caution has been taken not to become embroiled in what is going on around the person's views.

Nonetheless, it would be good to know your 'pilot colleagues' views about what aircraft they considered hit the South Tower, the North Tower too, if they happened to witness that.

Robert S


Posted by: Tamborine man Mar 27 2012, 09:36 PM

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Mar 25 2012, 10:04 PM) *
Which person on this thread has said it was a standard 767?



Before contemplating the improbable, let alone eliminating the impossible, how about addressing the obvious? You set a low bar for post-tertiary academic standards, Jim. If I were one of your philosophy students, I'd be demanding a refund.



mrmitosis,

no one in this thread, absolutely no one, has said that it was a standard 767.

It is the perps and the 'loyalists' who are maintaining that the plane was a hijacket UA175. Again - it's not us!

Cheers

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 27 2012, 10:04 PM

@Robert

I usually hit the "preview" button (beside "post") to see if the post has turned out okay.

Guys,

I think the main sticking point for genuine NPT advocates is the actual impact pattern itself. How the extremities actually penetrated the face of the buildings. Jim Fetzer's argument hinges on the "impossibility" of an aircraft interacting with the building as has been seen in the videos.

Maybe that should be the main focus so we can put our "doots" down?

@tit2

As for the Pentagon, I agree that the OCT impact scenario, the comparison to Manhattan is like chalk and cheese. Not just because of the rebar/kevlar concrete, but because the alleged aircraft was supposedly in a tilt and the extremities neither entered nor marked the decorative layer of facade nor were on the lawn.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 27 2012, 10:05 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 27 2012, 04:43 PM) *
If it is not the case that the cruising speed of a Boding 767 at 35,000' is 560 and that that speed would be impossible at 700-1,000', then it's relevant; otherwise, not.



Jim,

560 mph/486 knots at 35,000 feet, is the equivalent of 259 knots at sea level.

I would expect an "empty coke can" to smash against steel at such a low speed.

In comparison,

590mph/510 knots at sea level (the actual speeds reported based on Radar) is the equivalent of 956 knots/1,100 mph/Mach 1.59 at 35,000 feet.

I would expect an http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&st=80&p=10804229&#entry10804229 to pass through 1/4" steel effortlessly. Especially one that may have been modified for such an operation.

You have been taken off mod preview. Thanks for addressing my points.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 28 2012, 12:42 AM

One dimension of the "official account" of 9/11 is that the North Tower was hit by Flight 11, which was a Boeing 767, and that the South was hit by Flight 175, which was also a Boeing 767. The government has never said anything about these planes being other than standard Boeing 767s, which were supposed to have been 767-200s. Since Boeing 767s could not have entered the towers in the fashion shown in the videos--as I explain in "Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'", including both the footage of the "hit" on the North and the South Towers--the use of those videos as substantiating the official account is an instance of video fakery, when that term is defined (as I define it) of being a use of videos to convey a false impression of the events of 9/11. Please note that no real aircraft--Boeing 767-200 in a military or "special" version--could perform the feats of the planes shown in these videos. The "impossible speed" could have been overcome by a standard Boeing 767-200, as Pilots has established by one of its studies, where the fact that an F-14 "Tomcat", for example, could have flown faster at that altitude does not refute the fact that no Boeing 767-200 could have done it, where the videos are supposed to be films of flights by Boeing 767-200s. The points I am making are as refutations of the "official account" but also apply to variations advanced here.

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Mar 27 2012, 06:04 PM) *
Which person on this thread has said it was a standard 767?

Before contemplating the improbable, let alone eliminating the impossible, how about addressing the obvious? You set a low bar for post-tertiary academic standards, Jim. If I were one of your philosophy students, I'd be demanding a refund.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 28 2012, 12:50 AM

Rob,

I think you are not taking into account that Flight 175 was intersecting eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses that were anchored at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external support columns and filled with 4-8" of concrete, where each such floor represented an acre of concrete and steel. Even if you were right about the potential for the flight you describe to pass through 1/4" steel, it could not have overcome the massive horizontal resistance created by these eight (8) floors. It would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, where seats, bodies and luggage fell to the ground, none of which happened. I would invite you to return to http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/ and review the diagram that I provide. Imagine the consequences of a Boeing 767 encountering just one of these floors in flight.

Jim

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 27 2012, 09:05 PM) *
Jim,

560 mph/486 knots at 35,000 feet, is the equivalent of 259 knots at sea level.

I would expect an "empty coke can" to smash against steel at such a low speed.

In comparison,

590mph/510 knots at sea level (the actual speeds reported based on Radar) is the equivalent of 956 knots/1,100 mph/Mach 1.59 at 35,000 feet.

I would expect an http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&st=80&p=10804229&#entry10804229 to pass through 1/4" steel effortlessly. Especially one that may have been modified for such an operation.

You have been taken off mod preview. Thanks for addressing my points.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 28 2012, 12:56 AM

Many students have observed that these "cookie-cutter-like-cut-outs" are cartoonish. Indeed, if you take a close look--even at the frame with which my article, "Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'" beings, you will see that the plane is half-way into the building, yet no external damage is visible. As I explain elsewhere, in the case of the North Tower, the parallel cut-out was even extended in footage to make it look better in the eyes of the perps. But a real plane impacting with the towers would have created damage that would have been far more concentrated toward the center, where the relatively flimsy wing-tips would not have cut the steel. What you are viewing is a fantasy from beginning to end. And I believe that exposing this charade would do more to awaken the American public to the fabrication of 9/11 than 1,000 repetitions of the controlled demolition of WTC-7, which has been elegantly presented in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk" by Anthony Lawson.

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 27 2012, 09:04 PM) *
@Robert

I usually hit the "preview" button (beside "post") to see if the post has turned out okay.

Guys,

I think the main sticking point for genuine NPT advocates is the actual impact pattern itself. How the extremities actually penetrated the face of the buildings. Jim Fetzer's argument hinges on the "impossibility" of an aircraft interacting with the building as has been seen in the videos.

Maybe that should be the main focus so we can put our "doots" down?

@tit2

As for the Pentagon, I agree that the OCT impact scenario, the comparison to Manhattan is like chalk and cheese. Not just because of the rebar/kevlar concrete, but because the alleged aircraft was supposedly in a tilt and the extremities neither entered nor marked the decorative layer of facade nor were on the lawn.

Posted by: 23investigator Mar 28 2012, 02:12 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 28 2012, 11:34 AM) *
@Robert

I usually hit the "preview" button (beside "post") to see if the post has turned out okay.

Guys,

I think the main sticking point for genuine NPT advocates is the actual impact pattern itself. How the extremities actually penetrated the face of the buildings. Jim Fetzer's argument hinges on the "impossibility" of an aircraft interacting with the building as has been seen in the videos.

Maybe that should be the main focus so we can put our "doots" down?

@tit2

As for the Pentagon, I agree that the OCT impact scenario, the comparison to Manhattan is like chalk and cheese. Not just because of the rebar/kevlar concrete, but because the alleged aircraft was supposedly in a tilt and the extremities neither entered nor marked the decorative layer of facade nor were on the lawn.


Dear 'onesliceshort'

That is my normal practice.
When I have not been able to get the quote as Mr Balsamo prefers it, I have just had to be prepared, to accept his wrath.

Your point on the 'extremities', is very valid I believe.
Having placed a drawn profile of a Boeing 767 200, over the gash shown in a photograph of the south face of the South Tower, it brings forward a consideration.

In the NIST report no such procedure was carried out, the only presentation being a very 'conveniently positioned' drawn profile over an 'equally convenient' drawn representation of the gash in the building.

Proper consideration reveals if a Boeing 767 200 was involved, only a relatively small portion of it entered the building.

The ambiguity of the NIST report covers this elsewhere.
Suggesting, not all of the aircraft they say was involved, entered the building.
Yet in other portions of the report, elaborate drawings and representations are used, to show how the aircraft became sliced allowing all of it to enter the building.
The main concentration of this being consideration of the wings, which of course the fuel was carried in.
The fuel required to explain the massive 'hydro carbon', explosion shown in video and photographs.

The horizontal stabilizers and the very large vertical stabilizer, just dismissed in the ambiguity of contratradicting statement.

Robert S

Posted by: paranoia Mar 28 2012, 05:04 AM


QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Mar 23 2012, 02:39 AM) *
Com'on people be real now, please!

If NPT simply means that none of the 'official' planes crashed at either locations, then I'm certainly also a NPT adherent and supporter.

Please try to use your imagination to the fullest. Regarding second tower, we see on all videos a plane slicing into the building effortlessly.
No resistance by the steel columns nor the steel spandrel plates or the concrete floors behind the plates is offered to any of the weaker
parts of the airplane, such as the wingtips and the horizontal and vertical stabilizers. None whatsoever.

But if that's not enough, next we come to the truly bizarre and totally mad:
In the instant the plane has fully penetrated the facade it comes to an abrupt halt!!??

We know this, because the split second after the plane disappears into the building, a big fireball takes shape on the right side of the building
15 – 20 meters along from the impact facade. Not halfway, not ¾ way into the building, but within the first quarter, or third, of the way in!
A fireball also forms outside of the entry hole.

We also know (because of the impact hole and the alleged direction the plane flew), that apart from the port side wing, most of the plane
would have missed the center core of the building, and hence should have continued more or less partly intact (because of the floors only)
on its over 800 km/h speed through the open office spaces, impacting the side wall and the far end wall, a mere 64 meters away from the
entry opening – or ca. 26 meters away from the 'undamaged' nose of the plane!! But (ignoring everything about the so-called "nosecone")
none of this happened!
No further impact (now from the inside of the tower) was visible either from the right side wall or from the North end wall in any of the
videos or photos we have seen of the exterior of the building. No outward bulging whatsoever of the walls, is seen anywhere!


The plane apparently stopped, dead in its track, just inside the perimeter wall!


I truly hope that not one single member of PF9/11T will even dream of entertaining this idea that such insanity could have taken place
…….Please!!!!

Let us instead gladly give this preposterous lunacy to the 'loyalists', the shills, the 'paid agents' and their 'research assistants', together with
the rest of the truly ignorant and hopelessly immature twerps amongst them.

The planes seen and witnessed in the skies that day is a completely different story that deserves its own close scrutiny and investigation,
and which has already for a long period admirably been started by many good people.

NPT therefore - seen in the Right Light - is an absolute fact as far as I'm concerned, and should naturally be supported by all other just and
wise people! wink.gif

Cheers

tm (and mr.fetzer - tho i didnt have time to quote his posts), you make fairly accurate observations, but fail to form a plausible scenario that explains them. nevermind of course, that you are outright dismissing eyewitnesses who saw a plane hit the building. nevermind the delayed timing between wtc crash 1 and 2, which would have had thousands of eyes, and dozens of cameras pointed at the the first tower ablaze and smoking. nevermind the multiple existing footages (video, digital cameras, and 35mm film) of a plane hitting a building (second crash). nevermind the absence of footage showing an explosion but no plane. nevermind the logistical impossibility of containing such footage if indeed such an event (explosion but no plane) ever occurred.

but speaking strictly to the physical event, that is - the plane's impact and subsequent seamless penetration into the building, then more or less "stopping in its tracks", there is a much simpler explanation than video fakery, i.e. "npt" (as far as im concerned the 2 terms are inextricably tied to each other and mean the same thing). that explanation:

-immediately prior to the plane's entry, various obstacles inside the building that would have impeded its penetration, were dropped out of the way via a mini-demolition. floor sections and columns were removed and only the facade remained intact and in view. this allowed the plane to punch through the relatively thin metal outside the building, without being slowed down by anything inside the building.

-once inside the building, the plane itself, rigged with explosives and already filled with fuel, was detonated, making sure it shattered into small enough pieces that none would act upon the remaining structure (core especially) as a horizontal force.


a more-detailed explanation here:

Some Say Aluminum Planes Can't Penetrate Steel, How about pumpkins?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=25&p=10774440&#entry10774440
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=25&p=10774495&#entry10774495
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=50&p=10774522&#entry10774522
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=50&p=10774528&#entry10774528
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=50&p=10774529&#entry10774529
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=100&p=10774826&#entry10774826

-in the end my hypothesis was not refuted; those who believe the wtc crashes were a video hoax and not an actual event, and whose strongest evidence imo was the seamless penetration of plane through building, had no answer - and after diverting to other issues - the thread died off.

to illustrate it more accurately than the crudely made hand-drawn graphics i shared in that other thread, here is purdue's representation of the building, its structural components, and the plane's path:






sources (contain other related pics/graphics):
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase4/index.html
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/Run12/index.htm


-those floorpans and the columns inside the building should have slowed the plane down, IF they were there during penetration. but to me the more logical interpretation of what's seen in the impact videos, is the absence of structural elements in the plane's way, not the absence of a plane. imo its hard to refute how much easier it would be to mini-demo subsections of a building thats already been wired for full demo (maybe the flash seen before impact is part of this pre-impact demo), than it is to control/contain all the variables required for video hoaxing the event instead. its simple, effective, and easily doable, plus it avoids loose ends created by having to involve and or control multiple entities, ranging from news media to average joes on the street, all of whom were focused on the towers after the first impact/explosions.





re: holograms - imo such a notion is not even possible-enough to be considered as an explanation. whomever is suggesting so, i ask that they please provide an example of any hologram anywhere that can even remotely be compared to 2nd wtc crash, specifically a hologram projected in broad daylight and moving at high speeds over an entire city, able to be witnessed by multiple onlookers. until then, its merely a conspiracy theory (anyone seen https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&biw=1272&bih=819&q=u2r2h+hologram&oq=u2r2&aq=0v&aqi=g-v5&aql=&gs_l=serp.3.0.0i15l5.3750l5344l0l8844l2l2l0l0l0l0l141l219l1j1l2l0.llsin. lately?).

note - while searching for an example, i ran into this entry at fetzer's blog, but the only evidence cited for such technology is anecdotal (the author references without substantiation, a story allegedly relayed by a friend of john lear's):

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/06/barrys-conspiracy-world-no-plane-theory.html

QUOTE (Tuesday @ June 28, 2011)
Hologram Technology

There have been anecdotal reports of people giving speeches on stage at business conferences, while engaging the audience. Several minutes into the speech, the actual person walks out and stands next to his hologram which has duped the audience. A friend of aviation legend John Lear was driving in the California desert and spotted an enormous military cargo plane flying overhead. He found it odd that such a plane would be flying at such a location -- out in the middle of nowhere. He looked up and it vanished into thin air. The witness felt that this must have been a test run of holographic technology.


*while barry berman is credited with having written the above, alot of the text in that piece is extremely similar (almost word for word) to much of the logix presented here in this thread by mr.fetzer.


Posted by: amazed! Mar 28 2012, 09:15 AM

I would like to ask just how we arrived at the airspeed value?

Rob suggests above the value is derived from radar data. I think others have arrived at a value by somehow measuring by video reference how far the airplane travelled in a given time, thus arriving at a ground speed. Are there other methods used?

I hate to be repetitious, but I am most skeptical of the radar data for the simple fact that we know that to some extent the data was corrupted by injects in the name of VG.

In short, I don't see how a precise number for the airspeed can be calculated.

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 28 2012, 09:16 AM

Thanks for the links p!

One entry that stood out to me was the bunker buster guided missile (1991) designed to penetrate concrete with a delayed detonation. The GBU-28.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVkYe8tNZX4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11vZHrsJWjU

http://www.tanknutdave.com/component/relatedvideos/&:video:8vDJ_wyrf1k

Another bunker buster



Guidance system

http://www.mashpedia.com/Laser_designator


Anomalies in both tower impacts


Apparent explosion preimpact on tower 1, apparent flash preimpact tower 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbCcb6NV8Io


Footage labelled "nose in, nose out" 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i73XmZUxnVo

Another angle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54VHUi7-wDk

Now watch this video

84mm Carl Gustav HEAT 751 Shaped Charge tamdem warhead (slow motion)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6j9wEF1sf8

Similarities?

Shaped charge

https://www.llnl.gov/str/gifs/Baum2.gif

Shaped charge used in mining

http://www.rtbot.net/play.php?id=nrM4rrKhopY

http://www.rtbot.net/play.php?id=uLin2wlRMTg

00:28 (bulge seen between underbelly and right wing verified in other footage)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RpNSF-er88

Second impact footage - do holograms reflect light?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHMvXKVDE4o


Fl175 pod

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21851&view=findpost&p=10804296

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21851&view=findpost&p=10804345


My point being, not that I'm pinning my flags to any one mode of penetration but that NPT/video fakery, whether you're an advocate or not, immediately negates any further avenues of investigation because all visual evidence is invalidated.

La Vanguardia newspaper, for example, contacted Boeing about the abnormal shapes on the underbelly of "Flight 175" and allegedly couldn't comment.

There's the apparent flash/explosion just before the tower 1 impact. I don't know if there was ever a 3D simulation and azimuth calculations done to see at what point the explosion occured but that's another avenue of investigation that would be blocked.

Finally, Rob's work on the impossible speed. What's better? To have a way of demanding answers as to how that (officially documented) speed was allegedly reached by a transport category 767 or to throw it on top of the NPT heap?

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 28 2012, 09:37 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 28 2012, 09:15 AM) *
I would like to ask just how we arrived at the airspeed value?

Rob suggests above the value is derived from radar data. I think others have arrived at a value by somehow measuring by video reference how far the airplane travelled in a given time, thus arriving at a ground speed. Are there other methods used?

I hate to be repetitious, but I am most skeptical of the radar data for the simple fact that we know that to some extent the data was corrupted by injects in the name of VG.

In short, I don't see how a precise number for the airspeed can be calculated.



http://911depository.info/PDFs/NTSB%20Reports/Video%20Data%20Impact%20Speed%20Study%20UA175.pdf (8mb pdf)

Summary
Using distances taken from video screen prints, groundspeed at impact of 504 Knots and 507 Knots were calculated. This compares to an impact speed of 510 Knots calculated from radar data in the Radar Data Impact Speed Study (AA11 & UA 175)


NTSB Radar Data Impact Speed Study
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11,_UA175.pdf

Based on winds reported, I calculated a True Airspeed of 515 knots.

The speeds reported are impossible for a standard 767. They are not impossible if the aircraft were modified.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 28 2012, 10:39 AM

This post is wrong on so many counts that it is itself a piece of fakery:

(1) Since it shows the intersection with only six (6) and not seven (7) at
the North Tower or eight (8) at the South, this is sloppy research from
scratch and does not accurately represent either "hit" in New York City.

(2) I consider three alternatives: the use of CGIs, of video compositing,
and of a sophisticated hologram. CGIs and video compositing would only
apply to the broadcast footage, however, and not what witnesses saw.

(3) Not only do I take into account the eyewitness reports, but I accent
that, the more seriously we take their reports, the greater the weight for
a hologram, since otherwise "the plane" would not have been observable.

(4) There is no evidence for a "mini-demolition" of the inside of the North
or of the South Tower. Notice that the plane is completely inside the South
Tower BEFORE IT EXPLODES and there are no indications of prior explosion.

(5) The "obstacles" that would have impeded the penetration of "the plane"
into the building included those eight (8) floors of steel trusses covered with
4-8" of concrete. Their removal would have created major explosive effects.

(6) The Purdue simulation was an animation that has been widely discounted
as "work for hire". It does not show the plane intersecting with eight (8) floors,
where an explosion of its fuel would have occurred before was inside the tower.

(7) No such effects are visible, which means that this is an hypothesis which
has no evidence to support it. The author introduces a misleading version of
my position and then simply disregards the absence of any proof for his own.

(8) killtown has done excellent work on the "plane crashes", including this one
as a critique of a fake video that was actually broadcast over CBS News, "How
not to fake plane crash videos", http://fake-plane-crash-videos.blogspot.com/

(9) The obvious reason that paranoia has not convinced anyone of this theory
is that there is no evidence to support it. All the evidence is on my side, once
you separate contrived versions of my position from misleading ones like his.

(10) Among the experts I have interviewed about the use of a hologram was
http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/search?q=Stephen+Brown, who had just completed a course of holography at Cambridge
and confirmed that the technology for such a project had been available then.

Anyone who studies the evidence as I have explained it SHOULD arrive at the
same or similar conclusions, as is the case with http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/06/barrys-conspiracy-world-no-plane-theory.html.
My first article on this, http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Proof-of-Video-Fakery--by-Jim-Fetzer-080729-132.html, appeared in 2008.

See http://killtown.blogspot.com/search/label/No-Planes, which exposes the apparent use of actors on 9/11,
and includes a link to one of his interviews with me on "The Dynamic Duo" on
19 August 2008 (with graphics), in which he explains why they had to fake it.

This is an especially excellent interview with the most important footage you
need to know to understand how we know that "video fakery" was employed
in New York on 9/11. It should leave no room for any serious doubt about it.

QUOTE (paranoia @ Mar 28 2012, 04:04 AM) *
tm (and mr.fetzer - tho i didnt have time to quote his posts), you make fairly accurate observations, but fail to form a plausible scenario that explains them. nevermind of course, that you are outright dismissing eyewitnesses who saw a plane hit the building. nevermind the delayed timing between wtc crash 1 and 2, which would have had thousands of eyes, and dozens of cameras pointed at the the first tower ablaze and smoking. nevermind the multiple existing footages (video, digital cameras, and 35mm film) of a plane hitting a building (second crash). nevermind the absence of footage showing an explosion but no plane. nevermind the logistical impossibility of containing such footage if indeed such an event (explosion but no plane) ever occurred.

but speaking strictly to the physical event, that is - the plane's impact and subsequent seamless penetration into the building, then more or less "stopping in its tracks", there is a much simpler explanation than video fakery, i.e. "npt" (as far as im concerned the 2 terms are inextricably tied to each other and mean the same thing). that explanation:

-immediately prior to the plane's entry, various obstacles inside the building that would have impeded its penetration, were dropped out of the way via a mini-demolition. floor sections and columns were removed and only the facade remained intact and in view. this allowed the plane to punch through the relatively thin metal outside the building, without being slowed down by anything inside the building.

-once inside the building, the plane itself, rigged with explosives and already filled with fuel, was detonated, making sure it shattered into small enough pieces that none would act upon the remaining structure (core especially) as a horizontal force.

a more-detailed explanation here:

Some Say Aluminum Planes Can't Penetrate Steel, How about pumpkins?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=25&p=10774440&#entry10774440
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=25&p=10774495&#entry10774495
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=50&p=10774522&#entry10774522
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=50&p=10774528&#entry10774528
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=50&p=10774529&#entry10774529
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=100&p=10774826&#entry10774826

-in the end my hypothesis was not refuted; those who believe the wtc crashes were a video hoax and not an actual event, and whose strongest evidence imo was the seamless penetration of plane through building, had no answer - and after diverting to other issues - the thread died off.

to illustrate it more accurately than the crudely made hand-drawn graphics i shared in that other thread, here is purdue's representation of the building, its structural components, and the plane's path:






sources (contain other related pics/graphics):
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase4/index.html
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/Run12/index.htm

-those floorpans and the columns inside the building should have slowed the plane down, IF they were there during penetration. but to me the more logical interpretation of what's seen in the impact videos, is the absence of structural elements in the plane's way, not the absence of a plane. imo its hard to refute how much easier it would be to mini-demo subsections of a building thats already been wired for full demo (maybe the flash seen before impact is part of this pre-impact demo), than it is to control/contain all the variables required for video hoaxing the event instead. its simple, effective, and easily doable, plus it avoids loose ends created by having to involve and or control multiple entities, ranging from news media to average joes on the street, all of whom were focused on the towers after the first impact/explosions.

re: holograms - imo such a notion is not even possible-enough to be considered as an explanation. whomever is suggesting so, i ask that they please provide an example of any hologram anywhere that can even remotely be compared to 2nd wtc crash, specifically a hologram projected in broad daylight and moving at high speeds over an entire city, able to be witnessed by multiple onlookers. until then, its merely a conspiracy theory (anyone seen https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&biw=1272&bih=819&q=u2r2h+hologram&oq=u2r2&aq=0v&aqi=g-v5&aql=&gs_l=serp.3.0.0i15l5.3750l5344l0l8844l2l2l0l0l0l0l141l219l1j1l2l0.llsin. lately?).

note - while searching for an example, i ran into this entry at fetzer's blog, but the only evidence cited for such technology is anecdotal (the author references without substantiation, a story allegedly relayed by a friend of john lear's):

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/06/barrys-conspiracy-world-no-plane-theory.html

*while barry berman is credited with having written the above, alot of the text in that piece is extremely similar (almost word for word) to much of the logix presented here in this thread by mr.fetzer.

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 28 2012, 11:13 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer)
(3) Not only do I take into account the eyewitness reports, but I accent
that, the more seriously we take their reports, the greater the weight for
a hologram, since otherwise "the plane" would not have been observable.


I'll let paranoia speak for himself but that comment really makes me laugh out loud.
Translated: the more evidence of a plane being spotted, the more evidence there is for "holograms" laugh.gif

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 28 2012, 12:04 PM

QUOTE
There's the apparent flash/explosion just before the tower 1 impact. I don't know if there was ever a 3D simulation and azimuth calculations done to see at what point the explosion occured but that's another avenue of investigation that would be blocked


Has anybody got the link to the alleged audio recording of the WTC1 impact where there are 2 distinct explosions heard? I think they were caught during a meeting?

Cheers



Posted by: tit2 Mar 28 2012, 12:52 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 26 2012, 03:04 PM) *
Has anybody got the link to the alleged audio recording of the WTC1 impact where there are 2 distinct explosions heard? I think they were caught during a meeting?

Cheers



WTC1 impact (men visible in the video look to the sky when they hear the sound of aircraft approaching the north tower. I hear two sounds of explosions after the aircraft impact. The second lower than the first).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk

WTC2 impact (I hear three sounds of explosions after the aircraft impact):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XELamUnF0EU

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 28 2012, 02:13 PM

I am beginning to appreciate your moniker. Given that we cannot be dealing with a real plane, since this one is performing feats that no real plane could perform, there are only three apparent alternatives: (1) the use of CGIs, (2) the use of video compositing, and (3) the use of a sophisticated hologram. But (1) the use of CGIs or (2) the use of video compositing would not make "the plane" visible to witnesses but only in broadcast videos. Since "the plane" was visible to witnesses--and this is my point!--it cannot have been done by (1) the use of CGIs or (2) the us of video compositing. The greater the emphasis on the witness reports, therefore, the more weight for (3) the use of a sophisticated hologram. This is a relatively simple argument by elimination. I really don't understand how you could be following this thread and not get it!

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 28 2012, 10:13 AM) *
I'll let paranoia speak for himself but that comment really makes me laugh out loud.
Translated: the more evidence of a plane being spotted, the more evidence there is for "holograms" laugh.gif

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 28 2012, 02:31 PM

Rob,

Dennis and I have been discussing your position, which, at least to me, is not entirely clear. You seem to be inclined to believe that a real plane--specially modified, I take it--actually crashed into the North and South Towers. Please tell me if I have that right: that, in your opinion, real planes crashed into both Twin Towers.

Since we have footage showing what looks a great deal like a Boeing 767 and not an F-14 "Tomcat", I take it you believe that a "special plane" that looked a great deal like a Boeing 767 was used at the South Tower, because otherwise video fakery would be obvious--and it appears to me that you want to deny video fakery!

Some of the problems that arise on your account, if we understand it properly, derive from your apparent claim that modified planes could do this even though they have the same wing sweep and the same non-tapered fuselage shape as is evident in the available videos regarding 'how' these planes were modified:

First, the modified engines would have to fit the existing NACELLES perfectly or the image wouldn't work.

Second, the modified plane would have to overcome the same parasite and form drag coefficient it had when it left the production line.

Third, if 'heavily modified' planes, presumed to have been re-engined and aerodynamically sleeker, were used, then why don't we see that in the videos?

We would therefore appreciate your explanation for how the perps got rid of all of that form and parasite drag on these B-767s that day, because there is no evidence of tapered fuselages, or different engines in FACTORY NACELLES that are visible.

Unless you are maintaining that parasite and form drag disappeared on 9/11, in straight and level flight, it went up by the square with velocity, which means that it got WORSE that day. So what is your justification for why this was not an impediment to 515 knots TAS that morning?

Jim

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 28 2012, 08:37 AM) *
http://911depository.info/PDFs/NTSB%20Reports/Video%20Data%20Impact%20Speed%20Study%20UA175.pdf (8mb pdf)

Summary
Using distances taken from video screen prints, groundspeed at impact of 504 Knots and 507 Knots were calculated. This compares to an impact speed of 510 Knots calculated from radar data in the Radar Data Impact Speed Study (AA11 & UA 175)


NTSB Radar Data Impact Speed Study
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11,_UA175.pdf

Based on winds reported, I calculated a True Airspeed of 515 knots.

The speeds reported are impossible for a standard 767. They are not impossible if the aircraft were modified.

Posted by: tit2 Mar 28 2012, 05:05 PM


Other audio recording of the WTC1 impact (I had forgotten him!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtCfzDxD0g0

We hear the sound of the aircraft before is impact on the north tower, as in the Naudet video. With the luck we will have audio recording of the Pentagon impact, but it would surprise me!

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 28 2012, 06:53 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 26 2012, 05:31 PM) *


ok, first off, your argument is silly. think back to your early days when people modified their cars. bone stock on the outside, lots of mods on the inside. sleepers, i believe is the term. airplanes are the same.
why is that beyond the pale? holograms are more plausible? i think not.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 28 2012, 08:02 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 28 2012, 06:53 PM) *
ok, first off, your argument is silly. think back to your early days when people modified their cars. bone stock on the outside, lots of mods on the inside. sleepers, i believe is the term. airplanes are the same.
why is that beyond the pale? holograms are more plausible? i think not.



Well said GP.

Jim, read this three more times.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804300

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 28 2012, 09:01 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 28 2012, 02:16 PM) *
Thanks for the links p!

One entry that stood out to me was the bunker buster guided missile (1991) designed to penetrate concrete with a delayed detonation. The GBU-28.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVkYe8tNZX4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11vZHrsJWjU

http://www.tanknutdave.com/component/relatedvideos/&:video:8vDJ_wyrf1k

Another bunker buster

<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/3de_1243446542"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/3de_1243446542" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>

Guidance system

http://www.mashpedia.com/Laser_designator


Anomalies in both tower impacts


Apparent explosion preimpact on tower 1, apparent flash preimpact tower 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbCcb6NV8Io


Footage labelled "nose in, nose out" 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i73XmZUxnVo

Another angle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54VHUi7-wDk

Now watch this video

84mm Carl Gustav HEAT 751 Shaped Charge tamdem warhead (slow motion)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6j9wEF1sf8

Similarities?

Shaped charge

https://www.llnl.gov/str/gifs/Baum2.gif

Shaped charge used in mining

http://www.rtbot.net/play.php?id=nrM4rrKhopY

http://www.rtbot.net/play.php?id=uLin2wlRMTg

00:28 (bulge seen between underbelly and right wing verified in other footage)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RpNSF-er88

Second impact footage - do holograms reflect light?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHMvXKVDE4o


Fl175 pod

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21851&view=findpost&p=10804296

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21851&view=findpost&p=10804345


My point being, not that I'm pinning my flags to any one mode of penetration but that NPT/video fakery, whether you're an advocate or not, immediately negates any further avenues of investigation because all visual evidence is invalidated.

La Vanguardia newspaper, for example, contacted Boeing about the abnormal shapes on the underbelly of "Flight 175" and allegedly couldn't comment.

There's the apparent flash/explosion just before the tower 1 impact. I don't know if there was ever a 3D simulation and azimuth calculations done to see at what point the explosion occured but that's another avenue of investigation that would be blocked.

Finally, Rob's work on the impossible speed. What's better? To have a way of demanding answers as to how that (officially documented) speed was allegedly reached by a transport category 767 or to throw it on top of the NPT heap?


Bump.

Hey Jim, you missed a post.

QUOTE
I am beginning to appreciate your moniker


Says the guy who said this beaut.

QUOTE (jfetzer)
(3) Not only do I take into account the eyewitness reports, but I accent
that, the more seriously we take their reports, the greater the weight for
a hologram, since otherwise "the plane" would not have been observable.


Please, enough with the childish insults. I've been civil to you even though you've been selective and as subtle as a breeze block to posters with legitimate questions and points.

Peace.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 28 2012, 09:19 PM

Rob,

You have offered an hypothesis that appears to be untestable. Not to make
the obvious point, but what you have given in response to my questions is a
theory, when Pilots, especially you, are supposed to eschew "theories". How
could we possibly tell whether a plane that looks like a Boeing 767-200 has or
has not been "modified" to perform feats a standard 767 could not perform?

And, as I have previously observed, no real plane could have entered that
building without displaying the effects of a collision, "modified" or not. So if
you have an explanation that can justify, even remotely, your new position
about a "modified" 767, then I would like to hear it. You threatened me with
suspension for not answering your questions. I think you should answer mine.

Don't forget that it was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel
trusses connected at one end to the core columns and to the external steel
columns at the other, which were filled with 4-8" of concrete. I'm sorry to
say it, but you appear to have no justification at all for your fanciful theory.
And that others take your side does not show your side is reasonable or true.

Jim

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 28 2012, 07:02 PM) *
Well said GP.

Jim, read this three more times.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804300


Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 28 2012, 09:26 PM

QUOTE (tit2 @ Mar 28 2012, 05:52 PM) *
WTC1 impact (men visible in the video look to the sky when they hear the sound of aircraft approaching the north tower. I hear two sounds of explosions after the aircraft impact. The second lower than the first).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk

WTC2 impact (I hear three sounds of explosions after the aircraft impact):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XELamUnF0EU


Thanks tit2.

There is another audio of the first tower impact caught on a recording in an office building. No visual, just audio, where two explosions are heard. Can't find it and it was big news years ago.


Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 28 2012, 09:34 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 28 2012, 09:19 PM) *
How could we possibly tell whether a plane that looks like a Boeing 767-200 has or
has not been "modified" to perform feats a standard 767 could not perform?


Obtain and inspect the numerous aircraft parts recovered from Ground Zero. This will only happen through a new and independent investigation with subpoena power as outlined in our http://pilotsfor911truth.org/.

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 28 2012, 09:19 PM) *
So if you have an explanation that can justify, even remotely, your new position
about a "modified" 767, then I would like to hear it.


Jim, it's not a "new position". It is discussed in 9/11 World Trade Center Attack which was released http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18030. You should perhaps view it sometime.

http://vimeo.com/6679633 on http://vimeo.com.

Video Fakery and NPT has been discussed at length in this section of the forum. Such theories do not hold water, nor has it convinced me.

A hologram theory certainly does not convince me, especially when we cannot even access such advanced technology if it even exists.

You seem to think that we posses the technology to produce real life holograms flying over a Major city, but are unable to modify an aircraft internally for increased performance.

Again Jim, aircraft are modified all the time for increased performance.

For example, a http://www.dc8.org/library/supersonic/index.php was modified to exceed Mach 1, all they did was modify the leading edge of the wing and shift the CG with ballast. Neither of which can be detected on a Youtube video.

Finally, I didn't threaten you with suspension. I put you on mod preview till you answered my post that you evaded, and then removed the restriction after you made your reply.

However, I will now threaten you with suspension if you continue your ad homs and attacks on our respected members of this forum.

I don't care if you insult me, but you will not insult our forum members.

In short, we will never endorse your theories as an organization. I can only image if we did, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core would be dropping like flies. Perhaps that is your goal......
(by the way, be sure to keep an eye on it as we have another update coming.)

NPT and Video Fakery has done nothing but create "Truth Movement" divide since 2006.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 28 2012, 10:43 PM

Some plane parts were found but appear to have been planted, such as the engine component that was found at Church & Murray, which I discuss in "Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'". I cannot see how a position that I have only recently advanced based upon evidence that was not available at the time could possibly have been dealt with previous to this thread.

In particular, unless you are maintaining that Newton's laws were suspended on 9/11, there is no more merit to your "modified plane" than a normal 767. You seem to be keen on offering a position that has no known evidential support, which appears to me to violate your own constraints on "theories". I am having a hard time finding consistency in your methodology, Rob.

I have also been quite specific about holographic technology, where the hologram thesis has been endorsed by John Lear, by Steffan Grossman and, perhaps most importantly, by http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-stephen%20brown.mp3, whom I interviewed on "The Real Deal", who had recently completed a course on holography at Cambridge and assured me that the technology to have done this was available then.

Moreover, when I have repeatedly explained that this "plane" was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8" of concrete and all that, your reply strikes me as logically irrelevant and non-responsive to the issues I have raised. When you are willing to disregard relevant evidence, as you have here, you can make it fit virtually any theory at all.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 28 2012, 08:34 PM) *
Obtain and inspect the numerous aircraft parts recovered from Ground Zero. This will only happen through a new and independent investigation with subpoena power as outlined in our http://pilotsfor911truth.org/.

Jim, it's not a "new position". It is discussed in 9/11 World Trade Center Attack which was released http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18030. You should perhaps view it sometime.

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/6679633?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0" width="400" height="300" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe><p>http://vimeo.com/6679633 from http://vimeo.com/user2333155 on http://vimeo.com.</p>

As an organization we do not offer theory. However, as individuals, we would not be human if we didn't discuss the possibilities considering the data does not support the govt story. Again, there are many varying opinions within our organization, where we stand united is under our Mission Statement atop our http://pilotsfor911truth.org/.

Video Fakery and NPT has been discussed at length in this section of the forum. Such theories do not hold water, nor has it convinced me.

A hologram theory certainly does not convince me, especially when we cannot even access such advanced technology if it even exists.

You seem to think that we posses the technology to produce real life holograms flying over a Major city, but are unable to modify an aircraft internally for increased performance.

Again Jim, aircraft are modified all the time for increased performance.

For example, a http://www.dc8.org/library/supersonic/index.php was modified to exceed Mach 1, all they did was modify the leading edge of the wing and shift the CG with ballast. Neither of which can be detected on a Youtube video.

Finally, I didn't threaten you with suspension. I put you on mod preview till you answered my post that you evaded, and then removed the restriction after you made your reply.

However, I will now threaten you with suspension if you continue your ad homs and attacks on our respected members of this forum.

I don't care if you insult me, but you will not insult our forum members.

In short, we will never endorse your theories as an organization. I can only image if we did, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core would be dropping like flies. Perhaps that is your goal......
(by the way, be sure to keep an eye on it as we have another update coming.)

NPT and Video Fakery has done nothing but create "Truth Movement" divide since 2006.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 28 2012, 11:00 PM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 28 2012, 10:43 PM) *
Moreover, when I have repeatedly explained that this "plane" was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8" of concrete and all that, your reply strikes me as logically irrelevant and non-responsive to the issues I have raised. When you are willing to disregard relevant evidence, as you have here, you can make it fit virtually any theory at all.


Jim, when one believes an airliner is more like an "http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&st=80&p=10804228&#entry10804228", than an actual airliner with thousands of gallons of liquid in their wings, internal structural supports such as a main spar, bulkheads, and ribs... has seats, passengers (averaging 170-180 lbs of 70% liquid), a cockpit filled with heavy instruments,http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/2/6/2/1351262.jpg, luggage.....not to mention 6000 lb engines hanging from it (and an APU in the tail), i suppose i can see how you would think an "empty coke can" will crush against the side of the WTC.

I would agree with you if in fact an Airliner was an "empty coke can" as you assert and believe. Unfortunately for you, an Airliner is nothing like an "empty coke can". And when you understand this, perhaps you will understand why your theories fail and get limited support.

When we take into consideration KE = 1/2mv^2, we see that an airliner with a mass of more than 120,000 kg traveling at 860 feet per second has much more energy than an "empty coke can" traveling at the same speed.

Again Jim, an airliner is nothing like an "empty coke can". It is more like a large coke can with structural supports, filled with thousands of filled coke cans (and as a matter of fact, there are many filled coke cans in the galley... you can probably get a Sprite too, lol)

Considering the sheer amount of evidence for the WTC impacts (witnesses, video, aircraft parts)....

This seems more plausible to me than your theories, especially if the aircraft were modified for such an operation.



Again Jim, Pilots For 9/11 Truth will never endorse NPT nor Video Fakery. It has been discussed at length in this section of the forum. Feel free to do a search and post rebuttals to the points raised.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 28 2012, 11:31 PM

Let me see if I have this right. You object to my position because you fault the analogy with an empty coke can when, as I have explained, that is ONLY an analogy. It most certainly is no substitute for my argument, although I can see why you would prefer to attack it INSTEAD of my argument. Let me clarify a few points.

Airplanes operate on the basis of classical Newtonian principles, especially Newton's three laws of motion. I am therefore rather taken aback that you would want to suspend them for the sake of defending a position about what we see in these videos when they are obviously portraying events that violate Newton's laws.

You gain a specious plausibility by modifying the aircraft and ignoring the physical features of the building, even though I have repeatedly identified them: eight (8) steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns, at the other to the external support columns, and filled with 4-8" of concrete (or an acre apiece).

No one who acknowledges the massive horizontal resistance posed by those structures would find the idea of a "modified plane" overcoming those obstacles without its velocity dropping to zero, its fuselage crumpling, its wings and tail breaking off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground remotely plausible. None of that happened.

You suggest that I am out to divide the 9/11 Truth community. But I am drawing obvious conclusions that are supported by the evidence and follow from the most widely acknowledged laws in the history of physics, which cannot be violated and cannot be changed, even by "modified" airplanes that fly faster than standard.

And, when you assert, "Considering the sheer amount of evidence for the WTC impacts (witnesses, video, aircraft parts)....", I wonder if you have been reading any of my studies. Nothing about my hypothesis is inconsistent with the witnesses; it is based upon the videos; and it encompasses the phony planted parts.

So which of us is being more respectful of truth? The one whose arguments are based upon the available evidence, including the structure of the edifice, and consistent with the laws of physics? Or the one whose theory is based upon unavailable evidence, ignores the structure of the building and violates Newton's laws?

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 28 2012, 10:00 PM) *
Jim, when one believes an airliner is more like an "http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&st=80&p=10804228&#entry10804228", than an actual airliner with thousands of gallons of liquid in their wings, internal structural supports such as a main spar, bulkheads, and ribs... has seats, passengers (averaging 170-180 lbs of 70% liquid), a cockpit filled with heavy instruments,http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/2/6/2/1351262.jpg, luggage.....not to mention 6000 lb engines hanging from it (and an APU in the tail), i suppose i can see how you would think an "empty coke can" will crush against the side of the WTC.

I would agree with you if in fact an Airliner was an "empty coke can" as you assert and believe. Unfortunately for you, an Airliner is nothing like an "empty coke can". And when you understand this, perhaps you will understand why your theories fail and get limited support.

When we take into consideration KE = 1/2mv^2, we see that an airliner with a mass of more than 120,000 kg traveling at 860 feet per second has much more energy than an "empty coke can" traveling at the same speed.

Again Jim, an airliner is nothing like an "empty coke can". It is more like a large coke can with structural supports, filled with thousands of filled coke cans (and as a matter of fact, there are many filled coke cans in the galley... you can probably get a Sprite too, lol)

Considering the sheer amount of evidence for the WTC impacts (witnesses, video, aircraft parts)....

This seems more plausible to me than your theories, especially if the aircraft were modified for such an operation.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gH02Eh44yUg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Again Jim, Pilots For 9/11 Truth will never endorse NPT nor Video Fakery. It has been discussed at length in this section of the forum. Feel free to do a search and post rebuttals to the points raised.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 29 2012, 12:10 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 28 2012, 11:31 PM) *
No one who acknowledges the massive horizontal resistance posed by those structures


So much "horizontal resistance" that http://i.imgur.com/Qtjfv.jpg couldn't even make it through. rolleyes.gif


QUOTE
.... would find the idea of a "modified plane" overcoming those obstacles without its velocity dropping to zero, its fuselage crumpling, its wings and tail breaking off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground remotely plausible. None of that happened.


Actually, the plane was shredding to pieces. See the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH02Eh44yUg&feature=player_embedded I posted above.

Jim, i just calculated the amount of Energy released during impact.

The impact energy of a 767-200 (a standard 767 mind you, who knows what the mass was if modified), traveling at 510 knots (860 ft/sec), is nearly equivalent to the energy of 2000 sticks of Dynamite exploding.

This is what http://www.walb.com/story/11986781/2000-sticks-of-dynamite-brings-down-fl-high-rise?clienttype=printable&redirected=true accomplished.



Granted, that was only a 30 story high rise. I think the energy of 2000 sticks of dynamite can take care of 8 floors if concentrated.

Someone feel free to check my math as I did this pretty quickly.

KE=1/2mv^2

KE = 1/2(120,000kg)(262.4m/s)^2

where...
120,000 = Estimated Mass of 767-200 (it is actually higher, but for argument sake)
262.4 m/s = speed reported 510 knots (860f/s)


KE = 60,000(68853.76)

KE = 4,131,225,600J

Energy of 1 stick of Dynamite = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamite

4,131,225,600/2,100,000 = 1967.25 Sticks of Dynamite.

QUOTE
You suggest that I am out to divide the 9/11 Truth community.


I am not "suggesting" anything, I am telling you that your theories have divided the "Truth Movement". You know this first hand within your own organization. Whether you are doing it intentionally or not, you can only know.

The rest of your post I didn't bother to read. Again Jim, this topic is discussed ad nauseum in this section of the forum. Feel free to browse and post your rebuttals. As stated, it has been discussed, we will never endorse NPT nor Video Fakery as an organization. Sorry if that upsets you, that's just the way it is, and it is not due to lack of discussion or ignorance. Our Mission Statement is clear.

Keep in mind, we are one of the few forums out there which will allow such discussion. Most forums have banned the discussion of NPT and Video Fakery.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 29 2012, 12:19 AM

Do I have to point out that there is no evidence that the "plane" was shredded and that you are taking for granted that the Purdue simulation is trustworthy, when it obviously is not. Those who are dividing the truth movement are those who deny obvious consequences based upon the laws of physics and base positions on irresponsible studies by unworthy sources.

In particular, the Purdue simulation is blatantly defective in major respects. It does not represent the number of floors intersected accurately; it ignores the area of the facade that is steel and concrete; it offers an entry that accents two floors without representing their internal structure. Do you know the principle of computer science "GI, GO", Rob?

Given the gross simplification of relevant features of the building that I have identified, surely you appreciate that the Purdue engineers have sold their integrity as scientists and offered a flimsy model of what was, in reality, a highly robust structure. They exemplify the principle, "Garbage in, garbage out"! This simulation is YOUR "empty coke can"!

I have been puzzled by your calculations of the force that would be applied by your "modified" plane, when you offer no calculation of the resistance posed by the building. And are you forgetting that the effects of a plane flying 500 mph hitting a stationary building are the same as a stationary plane being hit by a building moving at 500 mph? Where are they?

Your 2000 sticks of dynamite is no substitution for the mass and resistance of a 500,000-ton steel and concrete building. And where are the effects of those 2000 sticks of dynamite? When are they supposed to have gone off? AFTER THE PLANE ENTERED THE BUILDING? Give me a break, Rob. You are fantasizing and theorizing while denying you are doing that.

And bear in mind that the Purdue simulation was done on the basis of a mass of assumptions, many of which are obviously false. Simulations are always based upon assumptions, which means that they are, as in this case, animated representations of theories. What this means is that you, the head of an organization that eschews theories, is basing his and Pilots' position on one.

I am also struck by attitude expressed in your statement, "Pilots For 9/11 Truth will never endorse NPT nor Video Fakery." That stance implies that, regardless of any future evidence or any future research, Pilots' stance will not change--even though you place emphasis on future inquiries that might vindicate your position. That is the method of tenacity and wishful thinking, not science and reason.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 28 2012, 11:10 PM) *
So much "horizontal resistance" that http://i.imgur.com/Qtjfv.jpg couldn't even make it through. rolleyes.gif

Actually, the plane was shredding to pieces. See the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH02Eh44yUg&feature=player_embedded I posted above.

Jim, i just calculated the amount of Energy released during impact.

The impact energy of a 767-200 (a standard 767 mind you, who knows what the mass was if modified), traveling at 510 knots (860 ft/sec), is nearly equivalent to the energy of 2000 sticks of Dynamite exploding.

This is what 2000 sticks of Dynamite accomplished.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zqWjspz06h4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Granted, that was only a 30 story high rise. I think the energy of 2000 sticks of dynamite can take care of 8 floors if concentrated.

Someone feel free to check my math as I did this pretty quickly.

KE=1/2mv^2

KE = 1/2(120,000kg)(262.4m/s)^2

where...
120,000 = Estimated Mass of 767-200 (it is actually higher, but for argument sake)
262.4 m/s = speed reported 510 knots (860f/s)


KE = 60,000(68853.76)

KE = 4,131,225,600J

Energy of 1 stick of Dynamite = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamite

4,131,225,600/2,100,000 = 1967.25 Sticks of Dynamite.



I am not "suggesting" anything, I am telling you that your theories have divided the "Truth Movement". You know this first hand within your own organization. Whether you are doing it intentionally or not, you can only know.

The rest of your post I didn't bother to read. Again Jim, this topic is discussed ad nauseum in this section of the forum. Feel free to browse and post your rebuttals. As stated, it has been discussed, we will never endorse NPT nor Video Fakery as an organization. Sorry if that upsets you, that's just the way it is, and it is not due to lack of discussion or ignorance. Our Mission Statement is clear.

Posted by: DeanHartwell Mar 29 2012, 12:20 AM

I have a general question.

I understand that Pilots for Truth will not endorse, for example, "video fakery" or "NPT."

But by ruling out theories, isn't Pilots for Truth adopting a theory? The Plane Theory.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 29 2012, 12:26 AM

QUOTE (DeanHartwell @ Mar 29 2012, 12:20 AM) *
I have a general question.

I understand that Pilots for Truth will not endorse, for example, "video fakery" or "NPT."

But by ruling out theories, isn't Pilots for Truth adopting a theory? The Plane Theory.



Hi Dean,

Please review our mission statement of the top of our home page. Pay particular attention to the underlined sentence.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org

In short, we do not offer theory as an organization. We want a new and independent investigation with subpoena power due to the fact that data, precedent and other information does not support the story we have been told by our govt.

Others are free to theorize and discuss the possibilities. It also seems that some others prefer to attack if one does not subscribe to their theories. Whatever floats their boat I suppose... we continue our work.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 29 2012, 12:35 AM

Rob,

Not only has Dean correctly observed that you are supporting a "plane" theory, but the simulation that you have endorsed is OBVIOUSLY based upon a theory--and one that, as I have shown, is seriously defective. If you deny NPT, you are endorsing PT--unless you declare that Pilots for 9/11 Truth cannot decide whether or not real planes really hit the North and the South Towers. If that is your position, then I think that you had better declare it, because the world is going to astonished and amazed if that is Pilots' position. You want to hide behind a mission statement, but surely the mission of "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" is 9/11 Truth! So tell us. It is impossible to get away from theorizing, Rob, since even calling something "a plane" without qualification implies that it is a real plane. You are doing a lot of that here, so I think you might as well simply admit it. If Pilots doesn't know whether real planes hit the Twin Towers, then tell us. Inquiring minds want to know.

Jim

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 28 2012, 11:26 PM) *
Hi Dean,

Please review our mission statement of the top of our home page. Pay particular attention to the underlined sentence.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org

In short, we do not offer theory as an organization. We want a new and independent investigation with subpoena power due to the fact that data, precedent and other information does not support the story we have been told by our govt.

Others are free to theorize and discuss the possibilities. It also seems that some others prefer to attack if one does not subscribe to their theories. Whatever floats their boat I suppose... we continue our work.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 29 2012, 12:36 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 29 2012, 12:19 AM) *
.And are you forgetting that the effects of a plane flying 500 mph hitting a stationary building are the same as a stationary plane being hit by a building moving at 500 mph? Where are they?



First you claim http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804318. Now you claim 500 mph.

What's next, 450 mph?

Why do you keep reducing the speeds http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804354?

Perhaps this is why?

KE = 1/2mv^2

lol....

Posted by: DeanHartwell Mar 29 2012, 12:39 AM


Thank you for the reply, Rob.

The organization does not offer theory or point blame.

I get it.

But if you really mean NO NPT

Or no no plane theory

Are you not as an organization offering a theory of "plane theory"?

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 28 2012, 09:26 PM) *
Hi Dean,

Please review our mission statement of the top of our home page. Pay particular attention to the underlined sentence.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org

In short, we do not offer theory as an organization. We want a new and independent investigation with subpoena power due to the fact that data, precedent and other information does not support the story we have been told by our govt.

Others are free to theorize and discuss the possibilities. It also seems that some others prefer to attack if one does not subscribe to their theories. Whatever floats their boat I suppose... we continue our work.


Posted by: jfetzer Mar 29 2012, 12:40 AM

Well, you really got me there, Robl Yes, "500" was a typo. Congratulations.
Strictly speaking, my example of Newton's third law works with any velocity.
But, I dare say, your argument confronts more serious issues than this one.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 28 2012, 11:36 PM) *
First you claim http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804318. Now you claim 500 mph.

What's next, 450 mph?

Why do you keep reducing the speeds http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804354?

Perhaps this is why?

KE = 1/2mv^2

lol....

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 29 2012, 12:40 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 29 2012, 12:35 AM) *
Rob,

Not only has Dean correctly observed that you are supporting a "plane" theory,


Yes Jim, according to people like you, we are plane huggers, according to people like Bursill and Lawson, we are NPTer's.

We get it from all sides. We are used to it.

But our Mission Statement is clear.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 29 2012, 12:43 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 29 2012, 12:40 AM) *
Well, you really got me there, Robl Yes, "500" was a typo. Congratulations.
But I dare say your argument confronts more serious issues than my typos.


Jim, two typos in the same post, in the same sentence, exactly the same way? Really?

Ok... if you say so. rolleyes.gif

Jim, what is the speed reported? Do you know? Be sure to proof read your post now, don't want "typos" to mislead the readers....lol

Posted by: Tamborine man Mar 29 2012, 12:45 AM

QUOTE (paranoia @ Mar 26 2012, 08:04 AM) *
tm (and mr.fetzer - tho i didnt have time to quote his posts), you make fairly accurate observations, but fail to form a plausible scenario that explains them. nevermind of course, that you are outright dismissing eyewitnesses who saw a plane hit the building. nevermind the delayed timing between wtc crash 1 and 2, which would have had thousands of eyes, and dozens of cameras pointed at the the first tower ablaze and smoking. nevermind the multiple existing footages (video, digital cameras, and 35mm film) of a plane hitting a building (second crash). nevermind the absence of footage showing an explosion but no plane. nevermind the logistical impossibility of containing such footage if indeed such an event (explosion but no plane) ever occurred.


Actually i HAVE given a plausible scenario. And No. I have NOT outright dismissed eyewitnesses.
On the contrary, i mention them in the selfsame post you're referring to! - as well as in posts no.
99 -111 - 129 - 140.

QUOTE
but speaking strictly to the physical event, that is - the plane's impact and subsequent seamless penetration into the building, then more or less "stopping in its tracks", there is a much simpler explanation than video fakery, i.e. "npt" (as far as im concerned the 2 terms are inextricably tied to each other and mean the same thing). that explanation:

-immediately prior to the plane's entry, various obstacles inside the building that would have impeded its penetration, were dropped out of the way via a mini-demolition. floor sections and columns were removed and only the facade remained intact and in view. this allowed the plane to punch through the relatively thin metal outside the building, without being slowed down by anything inside the building.

-once inside the building, the plane itself, rigged with explosives and already filled with fuel, was detonated, making sure it shattered into small enough pieces that none would act upon the remaining structure (core especially) as a horizontal force.


Jim fetzer has already commented on this in a logical way, i think. Will just add to the above,
that apart from the center core, there was no columns inside the building. It was all open
office space.

QUOTE





sources (contain other related pics/graphics):
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase4/index.html
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/Run12/index.htm


-those floorpans and the columns inside the building should have slowed the plane down, IF they were there during penetration. but to me the more logical interpretation of what's seen in the impact videos, is the absence of structural elements in the plane's way, not the absence of a plane. imo its hard to refute how much easier it would be to mini-demo subsections of a building thats already been wired for full demo (maybe the flash seen before impact is part of this pre-impact demo), than it is to control/contain all the variables required for video hoaxing the event instead. its simple, effective, and easily doable, plus it avoids loose ends created by having to involve and or control multiple entities, ranging from news media to average joes on the street, all of whom were focused on the towers after the first impact/explosions.


What about the intact spandrel plates in the above elevation that would have been hit by the wings and the nazelles?

QUOTE
re: holograms - imo such a notion is not even possible-enough to be considered as an explanation. whomever is suggesting so, i ask that they please provide an example of any hologram anywhere that can even remotely be compared to 2nd wtc crash, specifically a hologram projected in broad daylight and moving at high speeds over an entire city, able to be witnessed by multiple onlookers. until then, its merely a conspiracy theory (anyone seen https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&biw=1272&bih=819&q=u2r2h+hologram&oq=u2r2&aq=0v&aqi=g-v5&aql=&gs_l=serp.3.0.0i15l5.3750l5344l0l8844l2l2l0l0l0l0l141l219l1j1l2l0.llsin. lately?).


Like the great surprise i got recently, discovering the fear and dread people feel when it comes to discussing "infinity"
and "eternity", then likewise i'm actually totally bewildered and flabbergasted to discover that so many people find it
so impossible to imagine the presence of hologram projections at WTC!

Is it because no "theory" has been more vilified, more ridiculed, more scorned and more laughed at by the 'shills' and
the loyalists than anything else? But shouldn't this fact, at least to some degree, give just a little bit of food for thought
to some of "youse"?? No!

OK then, but what about the same kind of abuse, perhaps to a little lesser extent, P4T and CIT have experienced over
the many years from the same nasties! Should we not give this 'just a little bit of thought' either?

Of course we should, and we should in all honesty and in all fairness do the same to all three. As the saying goes: They
are all 'above' the targets, and hence the persistent, remorseless and sustained flak attacks from the perps and their
sycophants!
What other reasons could you possibly come up with, except it being for this very fact?

Please bear in mind that neither DARPA (see post no. 140) nor the military industrial complex in general, seems to have
any 'fears' about this new technology. Millions upon millions of dollars has been spent in research and development all
through the nineties and into the new millennium, to further develop this "new apparent wonder toy"!

(The Japanese and the Europeans got no fears either. So why is it ridiculed in this forum?? I just don't get it..... unless
of course, it's simply based on "willful ignorance"!! Nahh, that would be to horrible to contemplate, i think sad.gif )!

Cheers

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 29 2012, 12:45 AM

Rob,

Are we not supposed to notice that you have not replied to my post #180?
I spent some time on it to explain why your position is riddled with theory.

Jim

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 28 2012, 11:40 PM) *
Yes Jim, according to people like you, we are plane huggers, according to people like Bursill and Lawson, we are NPTer's.

We get it from all sides. We are used to it.

But our Mission Statement is clear.


Posted by: jfetzer Mar 29 2012, 12:48 AM

Come on!. It was an illustration of Newton's third law. I added the sentence,

"Strictly speaking, my example of Newton's third law works with any velocity."

for clarity, but you posted before you noticed it was there, if you have by now.

I give you this trivial victory, but for you post #180 represents a major defeat.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 28 2012, 11:43 PM) *
Jim, two typos in the same post, in the same sentence, exactly the same way? Really?

Ok... if you say so. rolleyes.gif

Jim, what is the speed reported? Do you know? Be sure to proof read your post now, don't want "typos" to mislead the readers....lol

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 29 2012, 01:02 AM

QUOTE (DeanHartwell @ Mar 29 2012, 12:39 AM) *
Thank you for the reply, Rob.

The organization does not offer theory or point blame.

I get it.

But if you really mean NO NPT

Or no no plane theory

Are you not as an organization offering a theory of "plane theory"?


According to data, numerous witnesses, numerous videos both network and private, and aircraft parts recovered at the site, real aircraft aircraft hit the WTC as observed. This does not mean the aircraft were N612UA nor N334AA as the evidence does not exist or support such a theory for those particular aircraft. In fact, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed_part2.html contradict what we have been told by our govt in so far as the aircraft observed to strike the WTC South Tower was a standard 767-200, N612UA, nor has the govt been forthcoming with documentation to provide positive identification of N612UA or N334AA.

But again, this does not validate NPT as was http://vimeo.com/6185347.

Based on http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804376, there was more than enough energy to create the damage observed in the South Tower, even for a standard 767 operating at nearly 22,000 kg's less than MTOW. Keeping in mind, these calculations do not account for any possible modification which may have increased the mass (perhaps significantly) of the aircraft observed to cause the damage at the WTC.

But again, a standard 767 could get the job done, if it were able to achieve such speeds. It cannot, but it can if modified.

Hope this helps.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 29 2012, 01:08 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 29 2012, 12:48 AM) *
I give you this trivial victory, but for you post #180 represents a major defeat.



Jim, how much "resistance" did this 30 story building exhibit when faced with the same energy concentrated on only 8 floors of the WTC?





Posted by: jfetzer Mar 29 2012, 01:10 AM

Giving this more thought, I am now inclined to believe that a conjecture I had
shared with Dennis may be true, namely, that you do not understand Newton's
third law. In fact, it would not have been an illustration of the third law to use
different velocities on both sides of the equation. That should have told you it
was an ILLUSTRATION of the third law, not an APPLICATION to this case. But
it is certainly correct that, in application to this case, a plane flying 560 mph
hitting a stationary 500,000-ton building would have the same effects as the
same plane, now stationary, being hit by that building moving at 560 mph. If
you give this more thought, I think you will see the absurdity of your position.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 28 2012, 11:43 PM) *
Jim, two typos in the same post, in the same sentence, exactly the same way? Really?

Ok... if you say so. rolleyes.gif

Jim, what is the speed reported? Do you know? Be sure to proof read your post now, don't want "typos" to mislead the readers....lol


Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 29 2012, 01:14 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 29 2012, 01:10 AM) *
Giving this more thought, I am now inclined to believe that a conjecture I had
shared with Dennis may be true,



Since you feel the need to share what Dennis is saying, perhaps you can provide a source quote?

Be sure to get permission for me to post his quotes as well.

Here's a hint Jim, Dennis doesn't support NPT either.

QUOTE
But
it is certainly correct that, in application to this case, a plane flying 560 mph
hitting a stationary 500,000-ton building would have the same effects as the
same plane, now stationary, being hit by that building moving at 560 mph.


Again Jim, the speeds reported were not 500 mph, nor 560. Please review the data. I've given it to you many times in this thread.

But i guess that's just another "typo", twice, in the same post. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 29 2012, 01:19 AM

Rob,

Why are you evading and evading? The post was about the Purdue simulation
and observed it was based upon a number of important but false assumptions.
In other words, to the extent to which you are basing your own position on the
Purdue simulation, you are basing it on a theory that is, in fact, a false theory.

When we view controlled demolitions like those you are presenting, notice that
we can see the immediate effects of the explosives exploding. When precisely
are you maintaining that your 2000 sticks of dynamite equivalent blew? We do
not see those effects when the plane effortlessly enters the South Tower, Rob.

I am very troubled that you are not only denying you are theorizing when you
are obviously theorizing, even in insisting it was a plane rather than the image
of a plane. There is no good reason for preferring that position to mine, which
I support by Newton's laws, the building's structure, and the videos themselves.

And the very idea that Pilots would adopt the PERMANENT STANCE that there
have to have been real planes, regardless of the evidence, present or future,
exemplifies the method of tenacity in adopting a belief and never changing it,
when you should instead be responsive to new evidence and new hypotheses.

You should at least admit that the Purdue animation is indefensible for several
reasons, including those I enumerated: it does not reflect the proper number
of intersected floors; it does not display the features of the facade accurately;
and what it presents as the interior is oversimplified to the point of absurdity.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 29 2012, 12:08 AM) *
Jim, how much "resistance" did this 30 story building exhibit when faced with the same energy concentrated on only 8 floors of the WTC?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zqWjspz06h4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Posted by: jfetzer Mar 29 2012, 01:21 AM

Do you understand why the values on both sides had to be the same? That Newton's
third law declares that, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction? I am
just a bit taken aback that you want to change the subject, time after time after time.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 29 2012, 12:14 AM) *
Since you feel the need to share what Dennis is saying, perhaps you can provide a source quote?

Be sure to get permission for me to post his quotes as well.

Here's a hint Jim, Dennis doesn't support NPT either.

Again Jim, the speeds reported were not 500 mph, nor 560. Please review the data. I've given it to you many times in this thread.

But i guess that's just another "typo", twice, in the same post. rolleyes.gif


Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 29 2012, 01:23 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 29 2012, 01:21 AM) *
Do you understand why the values on both sides had to be the same? That Newton's
third law declares that, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction? I am
just a bit taken aback that you want to change the subject, time after time after time.



Jim, the "equal and opposite" reaction that was done to the plane is the fact that the plane did not come out the other side in one piece.

Again -




The energy of 2000 sticks of dynamite did not hit a 500,000ton solid steel plate Jim. It hit eight floors surrounded by 1/4' thick steel box beams connected by bolts. 2000 sticks of Dynamite took care of 30 floors in FL.

lol

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 29 2012, 01:27 AM

Is this image supposed to be an argument? Because an argument has premises and a conclusion. I have repeatedly observed that each floor was composed of a steel truss connected at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external support columns. They were filled with 4-8" of concrete. The "plane" was intersecting with eight (8). And that would have been the case if the actual floors had been empty. Look at the diagram I have provided and invited you to consider many times now (in "Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'). How am I supposed to take you seriously when you are ignoring the crucial features of the structure that pose the greatest obstacle to your theory?

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 29 2012, 12:08 AM) *
Jim, how much "resistance" did this 30 story building exhibit when faced with the same energy concentrated on only 8 floors of the WTC?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zqWjspz06h4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 29 2012, 01:29 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 29 2012, 01:27 AM) *
How am I supposed to take you seriously when you are ignoring the crucial features of the structure that pose the greatest obstacle to your theory?



That is a great idea Jim.

Don't take me seriously, and please don't use our work in your articles, as now we are just going round and round, and you still have yet to accurately recite the speeds reported

Thanks!

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 29 2012, 01:34 AM

Rob,

You are wrong on both counts. Newton's third law dictates that the causal consequences would have been the same whether the plane was in motion and the building stationary or the plane stationary and building in motion. What would have happened if this 500,000-ton building had hit the stationary 767 at 560 mph?

You adopt a model of building as if it were a stack of dimes on top of a stack of nickels on top of a stack of quarters on top of a stack of fifty cent pieces, for example. That's fine, except that those stacks were, in this case, welded together. I am afraid your own analogy has misled you, Rob. Another empty coke can!

Indeed, this is why the analogy of a plane flying really, really fast, which is your hypothesis, won't cut it. I observe as a counter example that if a car were traveling really, really fast, it still would not pass through a massive tree upon impact. And neither would a plane flying really, really fast have passed through a tower.

And, since I anticipate an attempt to trivialize my point, the videos show "the plane" effortlessly entering the building. The design of the building, however, including its intersection with eight (8) floors consisting as I have described them, would have posed enormous horizontal resistance. Your theory, Rob, is a fantasy.

Jim

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 29 2012, 12:23 AM) *
Jim, the "equal and opposite" reaction that was done to the plane is the fact that the plane did not come out the other side in one piece.

Again -

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gH02Eh44yUg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The energy of 2000 sticks of dynamite did not hit a 500,000lb solid steel plate Jim. It hit eight floors surrounded by 1/4' thick steel box beams connected by bolts. 2000 sticks of Dynamite took care of 30 floors in FL.

lol


Posted by: jfetzer Mar 29 2012, 01:40 AM

Rob,

You can't be serious. You are adopting an attitude like that of The 6th Floor Museum about the slides in their possession. You have no copyright on your research, Rob. Anyone is entitled to cite it one way or another in their own research. In the past, I have always cited it with great approval. But the arguments that you as the head of Pilots are making here strike me as in an entirely different category. Your other research has been meticulous and compelling. What you are doing here is poorly reasoned and inconsistent with the available evidence. It even entails the violation of Newton's laws. I really believe you need to give this more thought. Your position is indefensible.

Jim

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 29 2012, 12:29 AM) *
That is a great idea Jim.

Don't take me seriously, and please don't use our work in your articles, as now we are just going round and round, and you still have yet to accurately recite the speeds reported

Thanks!

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 29 2012, 01:44 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 29 2012, 01:34 AM) *
Rob,

You are wrong on both counts. Newton's third law dictates that the causal consequences would have been the same whether the plane was in motion and the building stationary or the plane stationary and building in motion. What would have happened if this 500,000-ton building had hit the stationary 767 at 560 mph?



Jim,

If a car hits a house, a house that weighs perhaps 100 times that of the car, does that mean the car can never penetrate that house and the car should be crumpled into a ball outside the walls of the house?

If a car lost control and hit the WTC, does that mean it could have never penetrated the lobby because the WTC weighs 500,000 tons?

How did this jet possibly penetrate this structure at a fraction of the speeds reported on 9/11, when the structure weighs so much more?



lol...

Jim, not only do I not want you to not use any of our work in your future articles, but I would appreciate it if you pull all our work from your past articles.

Thank you.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 29 2012, 01:46 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 29 2012, 01:40 AM) *
You have no copyright on your research, Rob.


Actually, I do.

However, I am asking you nicely.

If you refuse, I will post to the top of every one of our articles you source, that we do not endorse the Theories of Jim Fetzer.

If you still refuse, we'll take it from there.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 29 2012, 01:55 AM

Rob,

Do you really think adopting the attitude of a petty intellectual tyrant enhances the stature of Pilots? It's not just the gross weight, of course, but the design of the building that matters. It was an intricate, lattice steel and concrete structure. No real plane could have penetrated it in the effortless fashion that we experience in these videos. All the phony animations in the world are not going to salvage an indefensible position such as the one you have foisted off on Pilots. And where do you come off imposing constraints upon freedom of speech and freedom of the press? I have held you in high esteem in the past, Rob, but, in my opinion, the anti-intellectual, anti-scientific and anti-rational attitudes you are displaying on this thread are doing great damage to the society that you head. Stop overreaching, Rob. You have no more control over my research than I have over yours. The difference is that, in this case, my position is well-founded, while yours is not. What would happen if a stationary 767 were hit by a 500,000-ton building that was moving 560 mph, Rob? Give this a little more thought.

Jim

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 29 2012, 12:44 AM) *
Jim,

If a car hits a house, a house that weighs perhaps 100 times that of the car, does that mean the car can never penetrate that house and the car should be crumpled into a ball outside the walls of the house?

If a car lost control and hit the WTC, does that mean it could have never penetrated the lobby because the WTC weighs 500,000 tons?

How did this jet possibly penetrate this structure at a fraction of the speeds reported on 9/11, when the structure weighs so much more?



lol...

Jim, not only do I not want you to not use any of our work in your future articles, but I would appreciate it if you pull all our work from your past articles.

Thank you.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 29 2012, 02:03 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 29 2012, 01:55 AM) *
Rob,

Do you really think adopting the attitude of a petty intellectual tyrant enhances the stature of Pilots?



Do you really think that if we adopt your theories and post them front page that I would have been able to http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core?

How'd that work out for Scholars?

We do not support your theories Jim. And quite frankly, I am glad I further explored this issue and did the math. It confirms what I already researched and discussed in the past in this forum section on this topic.


Jim, lets explore the hypothetical.

If there was some large Giant, I mean a REALLY large Giant. One who could pick up the South Tower and swing it like a bat.

For a baseball, he uses a 767-200.

He tosses up the 767-200 for a self-pitch, and swings the WTC like a bat.

How far do you think the 767 will travel?

Do you think the 767 will just bounce off the WTC like a baseball bounces off a bat?

Does the WTC look as solid as a Bat to you?



Or do you think the "baseball" (aka as a 767 in this case) will just penetrate the structure as the structure/bat crumbles around the 767 at point of contact.

Jim, the aircraft did not hit a solid 500,000 ton steel bat covering the space of only 8 floors.

This is where you do not understand Newton's Third Law, nor able to understand basic KE, nor understand the fact that KE increases with the square of the velocity, nor are you able to accurately retain the speeds reported... (oh wait.. they were typos... 6 times over...).

Give it a rest Jim.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 29 2012, 02:17 AM

Those buildings were massive, intricately designed and integrated structures, which is why the comparison with a massive tree is appropriate. Just as the resistance of the tree is rooted in its roots, the resistance of the towers is rooted in their core columns and foundations. I can't believe you have become so obtuse. It did not simply encounter eight (8) floors, but eight (8) floors that were an integral part of a 500,000-ton building. And you have not even admitted the blatant inadequacies of the Purdue simulation. Something is very wrong, Rob, and it has almost nothing to do with me. I am not asking you to adopt "my theories" so much as I am pointing out that your position is clearly indefensible, which, in my opinion, does far more damage to the 9/11 Truth movement than those of us who are dealing with its most controversial aspects. How can you believe you are promoting "9/11 Truth" when you are basing your arguments on simulations that are false and violations of Newton's laws? And your authoritarian and possessive stance about your research is really something else. There is something called "fair use", Rob. Check it out. Before you go crazy because you can't cope with my arguments, you really need to look into intellectual property rights. You are only making matters worse by attempting to restrain freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 29 2012, 01:03 AM) *
Do you really think that if we adopt your theories and post them front page that I would have been able to http://pilotsfor911truth.org/org?

How'd that work out for Scholars?

We do not support your theories Jim. And quite frankly, I am glad I further explored this issue and did the math. It confirms what I already researched and discussed in the past in this forum section on this topic.

Jim, lets explore the hypothetical.

If there was some large Giant, I mean a REALLY large Giant. One who could pick up the South Tower and swing it like a bat.

For a baseball, he uses a 767-200.

He tosses up the 767-200 for a self-pitch, and swings the WTC like a bat.

How far do you think the 767 will travel?

Do you think the 767 will just bounce off the WTC like a baseball bounces off a bat?

Does the WTC look as solid as a Bat to you?



Or do you think the "baseball" (aka as a 767 in this case) will just penetrate the structure as the structure/bat crumbles around the 767 at point of contact.

Jim, the aircraft did not hit a solid 500,000 ton steel bat covering the space of only 8 floors.

This is where you do not understand Newton's Third Law, nor able to understand basic KE, nor understand the fact that KE increases with the square of the velocity, nor are you able to accurately retain the speeds reported... (oh wait.. they were typos... 6 times over...).

Give it a rest Jim.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 29 2012, 02:26 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 29 2012, 02:17 AM) *
Those buildings were massive, intricately designed and integrated structures,


As is a 767. Certainly, far from being comparative to an "http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&st=80&p=10804228&#entry10804228".

QUOTE
which is why the comparison with a massive tree is appropriate. Just as the resistance of the tree is rooted in its roots, the resistance of the towers is rooted in their core columns and foundations.


lol... that's like saying an out of control car cannot penetrate a house because it's structural resistance is based on it's foundation. First you claim it's the entire weight of the structure which is considered, now it's the foundation? Make up your mind.

(by the way, the core columns were not the structure initially penetrated. Hence the reason they call them core columns.)

How many Trees do you know in which the light from the Sun can penetrate?

If you hit a baseball with a tree, the baseball will fly far regardless if the tree is rooted.

If you swing the WTC like a bat using a 767 as a baseball, do you think you'll hit a homerun? Perhaps the 767 will just crumple to the ground after contact?


lol....this is just pointless.


Jim,

I no longer have time to go round and round with you tonight, especially since you have evaded every single one of my questions, and STILL cannot recall accurately the speeds reported.

It's simple Jim, stop using our work to support your theories.

I respect the fact you wish to explore theories. Please respect my position. Call me obtuse, a petty intellectual tyrant, any name you choose (and there are many over the past few pages). But the bottom line is, you do not have permission to use our work as our work does not validate your theories. John Lear understand this, you should too.

http://vimeo.com/6185347 on Vimeo.


Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 29 2012, 06:22 AM

Jim Fetzer, seeing as how you ignored my earlier posts, let's just cut to the chase.

How can you claim that all of the videos and images have been "faked", yet use those same videos and images to analyze the impact/penetration?

If they've been "faked", aren't they completely invalid?

Cheers

Posted by: Tamborine man Mar 29 2012, 06:42 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 26 2012, 02:13 PM) *
I'll let paranoia speak for himself but that comment really makes me laugh out loud.
Translated: the more evidence of a plane being spotted, the more evidence there is for "holograms" laugh.gif



It's not quite a laughing matter if one should view it from the "Right" side of the 'equation'!


If no plane entered the building, then it was not a "real" plane that witnesses saw from the

ground, or the helicopter crews filmed from the air, nor 'amateurs' filmed from the ground
or hi-rises somewhere, but MUST have been a 'simulation' in the form of a 'hologram'
projection, that all the various witnesses must have observed from their different vantage
points.

The very early Hazerkhani shot, and the next day Naudet bros. shot, as well as a few others,

i think bears the unmistakable imprints of being either CGI manipulated, or when it comes
to still photos, photo-shop altered - imho.

The first 'hologram' ever shown to the public, took place in the Japanese Pavilion at the
World Expo in Brisbane, Australia 1988.
You stood in queue for nearly an hour to get in.
Inside you saw a little man almost a foot high (iirc), standing in the middle of a little mini
stage speaking to the audience around 6 to 8 feet away. It was all well lit. You could see
360º around him. He looked as physical and real as the rest of us. The only difference
being,
that one could see a faint bluish tint surrounding him, but that was all.

Now, USA has always shown a desire to be the best at everything (except to Love, and
to
respect human life of course), but besides that, all else it seems!
Thus, they would also have wanted to be the best and the foremost nation when it came
to
'Holograms'. This should really go without saying! So for this reason alone, I personally
got no doubt whatsoever that USA had this technology
up and running back in 2001!

A paper from 1998 exist with the title:

3-D Holographic display using Stronium Barium Niobate.

With the following introduction:


"An innovative technique for generating a three dimensional holographic display using strontium barium niobate (SBN) is discussed.
The resultant image is a hologram that can be viewed in real time over a wide perspective or field of view (FOV). The holographic
image is free from system- induced aberrations and has a uniform, high quality over the entire FOV. The enhanced image quality
results from using a phase conjugate read beam generated from a second photorefractive crystal acting as a double pumped phase
conjugate mirror (DPPCM). Multiple three dimensional images have been stored in the crystal via wavelength multiplexing.

PDF from 1998."


Please read in conjunction with quote from DARPA's budget paper, as shown in post 140!

You can Google the heading above and discover that other forums have already taken this up month ago.

Cheers

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 29 2012, 08:18 AM

welds break. bolts shear. steel bends. a hologram does not have mass and hence cannot be used to explain the damage.

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 29 2012, 09:39 AM

QUOTE ™
It's not quite a laughing matter if one should view it from the "Right" side of the 'equation'!


TM, the entire argument for holograms AFAIK is based upon a single video. "The Ghost Plane".
From this video and it's apparent "defiance" of the laws of physics, it's been decided that every other video and image is fake.

It's claimed that the aircraft seen in this video has been photoshopped, manipulated, faked.

In the video linked to by Jim Fetzer, "Theory of ghostplane":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc

The author also demonstrates how the impact damage can also be faked.

Seeing as how you're obviously not going to address this http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804353, I'll repeat the question (that you've also skipped over).

If this video is "fake" or "manipulated" or even a total invention, how can an entire thesis be based upon a piece of "evidence" where the alleged impactand penetration can be shown to be inserted?
Why is one aspect of the video completely accepted while another is utterly rejected when the entire piece is "suspect"?

You don't see the contradiction in using what you see as government supplied "evidence"? The oppurtunity to manipulate you?


Posted by: jfetzer Mar 29 2012, 09:53 AM

These videos are showing the occurrence of events that violate the laws of physics, of engineering, and of aerodynamics, which means that they are showing impossible events. No videos that show impossible events can be authentic in both their content and their production. My point is to prove that they are showing either a video that has been faked (by introducing those impossible events using computer-generated images or using video compositing) or that the plane itself has been faked (by using a sophisticated hologram).

The use of computer generated images or of video compositing would affect the images that were broadcast over television, but only after those features had been added to the film. That would mean that witnesses who reported seeing what they took to be a plane would have to be suffering from false memory syndrome or simply mistaken or even deliberately lying. At least some of them appear to be sincere and telling what they believe to be the truth. The more weight we give to these witness reports, the more it evidence there is for using a hologram.

Since what they reported to be "a plane" was performing feats that no real plane could perform--including especially passing effortlessly into the building in violation of Newton's laws--what we see in the videos has to be something that LOOKED LIKE a real plane but was NOT A REAL PLANE. If there is something that can satisfy those requirements that is other than a sophisticated hologram, I would like to know what that could possibly been. The point of the proofs I have advanced is to prove these videos are fake, which is proof of the use of video fakery.

Video fakery is any use of videos to convey a false impression about the events they represent. In this case, those events concern what happened on 9/11. We have multiple lines of proof that the whole 9/11 story is a fabrication from beginning to end, including that the government has never proven that those 19 "hijackers" were aboard any of those planes, that the phone calls from the planes were also fabricated, that the NTSB never investigated any of the crashes, that no Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville, and that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

In addition, the videos we have of Flight 11 crashing into the North Tower and of Flight 175 crashing into the South are laden with anomalies. I presented many of them in "Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'". One of the peculiarities of the situation we are in is that Pilots has established that Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time it was supposed to be crashing in Shanksville and that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh at the time it was supposed to be entering the South Tower. Since it cannot be in two places at the same time, what we have MUST BE "video fakery".

The head of Pilots, however, has declared that Pilots WILL NEVER accept NPT ("No Plane Theory"), which is the position that none of the four Boing 757s and 767s the government maintains crashed on 9/11 actually crashed on 9/11, which means that the videos showing Flights 11 and 175 hitting the North and the South Towers are fake. But oddly enough, he has also declared that Pilots WILL NEVER accept video fakery. But his argument entails the use of at least one "modified plane", which is not Flight 175, which means that he is BOTH admitting AND denying "video fakery" at the same time.

This may not be QUITE as absurd as maintaining that the same plane could be in two places at the same time, but it comes close. Since HIS OWN ARGUMENT proves the occurrence of video fakery, even leaving the impossible entry into the building to the side, his position is self-contradictory. It cannot be true that the plane shown in these videos is NOT Flight 175 AND that video fakery was not taking place on 9/11. But that is the position of the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, who has been reduced to defending the truth of a position that cannot possibly be true in the name of 9/11 Truth!

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 29 2012, 05:22 AM) *
Jim Fetzer, seeing as how you ignored my earlier posts, let's just cut to the chase.

How can you claim that all of the videos and images have been "faked", yet use those same videos and images to analyze the impact/penetration?

If they've been "faked", aren't they completely invalid?

Cheers


Posted by: jfetzer Mar 29 2012, 10:05 AM

Absolutely not. I presented four videos to demonstrate that video fakery of some kind was taking place. The "Theory of Ghostplane" was produced by Ace Baker in support of vide compositing. That method does not explain the data, however, when the witness reports are taken into account. Since I have laid out the evidence for video fakery again and again, I cannot understand why you would suggest that "the entire argument for holograms" is based upon a video that is not even arguing in support of holograms but for the use of video compositing. The case for video fakery entails that what is presented in these videos is fake, but how it was done could be using computer-generated images, video compositing, or a hologram. The CGI and VC alternatives, however, are inconsistent with the witnesses who reported seeing "a plane" (what they took to be a plane). since the use of CGI or of VC would not have produced the image of a plane for those witnesses to observe. The only alternative that does that is the use of a hologram, which, by the way, is powerfully supported by the fourth of those videos, entitled http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek-Q0T9wK2g. Notice how the left wing disappears and subsequently reappears. Q.E.D.

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 29 2012, 08:39 AM) *
TM, the entire argument for holograms AFAIK is based upon a single video. "The Ghost Plane".
From this video and it's apparent "defiance" of the laws of physics, it's been decided that every other video and image is fake.

It's claimed that the aircraft seen in this video has been photoshopped, manipulated, faked.

In the video linked to by Jim Fetzer, "Theory of ghostplane":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc

The author also demonstrates how the impact damage can also be faked.

Seeing as how you're obviously not going to address this http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804353, I'll repeat the question (that you've also skipped over).

If this video is "fake" or "manipulated" or even a total invention, how can an entire thesis be based upon a piece of "evidence" where the alleged impactand penetration can be shown to be inserted?
Why is one aspect of the video completely accepted while another is utterly rejected when the entire piece is "suspect"?

You don't see the contradiction in using what you see as government supplied "evidence"? The oppurtunity to manipulate you?

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 29 2012, 10:08 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 29 2012, 09:53 AM) *
Since it cannot be in two places at the same time, what we have MUST BE "video fakery"..............

This may not be QUITE as absurd as maintaining that the same plane could be in two places at the same time, but it comes close.


Sigh....

Since Jim apparently doesn't understand my answers to his questions which have been repeated for him nearly 9 times in various forms, it is clear he will never get it.

But for the readers, please click here...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804182

Someone might also want to explain this video to Jim.... as apparently he doesn't understand it.




Jim, if you continue your strawmans, back on mod preview you go. I'm tired of your insults and having to repeat myself time after time. You are now officially in the category of a troll. I have given you enough latitude thus far. No more Mr Nice Guy.

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 29 2012, 10:12 AM

Did you actually read my post?? The post where I expanded on the contradiction of using the "Ghostplane" video as "proof" of anything?

Here it is again...

QUOTE
TM, the entire argument for holograms AFAIK is based upon a single video. "The Ghost Plane".
From this video and it's apparent "defiance" of the laws of physics, it's been decided that every other video and image is fake.

It's claimed that the aircraft seen in this video has been photoshopped, manipulated, faked.

In the video linked to by Jim Fetzer, "Theory of ghostplane":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc

The author also demonstrates how the impact damage can also be faked.

Seeing as how you're obviously not going to address this http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804353, I'll repeat the question.

If this video is "fake" or "manipulated" or even a total invention, how can an entire thesis be based upon a piece of "evidence" where the alleged impact and penetration can be shown to be inserted?
Why is one aspect of the video completely accepted while another is utterly rejected when the entire piece is "suspect"?

You don't see the contradiction in using what you see as government supplied "evidence"? The opportunity to manipulate you?


Your play on words regarding Rob's work is breathtaking Jim.

Posted by: jfetzer Mar 29 2012, 10:40 AM

Rob,

Let me explain some of the elements of your position that appear to me to be completely indefensible, not politically but logically. A basic requirement of scientific reasoning is that conclusions have to be based upon all of the available relevant evidence. It seems to me that you are violating this requirement by citing only the evidence that is favorable to your side and thereby committing the fallacy known as "special pleading". Here are some examples of what I mean:

(1) Video fakery is any use of videos to convey a false impression. These videos have been used to claim that Flight 175 hit the South Tower. Since Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was, according to these videos, effortlessly entering the South Tower, even your own research establishing that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh implies that it cannot have been entering the South Tower, which in turn implies that video fakery was taking place. Proof #1.

(2) You insist that the speed of the aircraft shown in these videos--which is something like 560 mph, even if you want to quibble about it, which would have been impossible for a standard Boeing 767--would not have been impossible for a modified aircraft. But the use of a modified aircraft in a video that has been used to claim that Flight 175 hit the South Tower would necessarily be another form of video fakery, which you deny was taking place. That's Proof #2.

(3) The videos show an impossible entry into the building, which you maintain was correct based upon the animation provided by Purdue. But it shows the wrong number of floors intersected; does not represent the facade correctly; and ignores the internal structure of those floors. In fact, it does not even demonstrate that each floor was covered by 4-8" of concrete. But that means you are attempting to deny the use of video fakery using a fake video. Proof #3.

(4) In addition to the features I have previously enumerated, I have also noted that the plane has no strobe lights (John Lear), that it casts no shadow (Ben Collet), and that its left wing disappears and then reappears in some of these videos. To the best of my knowledge, you have never addressed any of these points, which means that, as with regard to (1), (2), and (3), you are selecting the evidence that supports your position and disregarding the rest. Proof #4.

(5) You are also committing Pilots for 9/11 Truth to NEVER accepting NPT ("No Plane Theory"), which means that none of the Boeings the government maintains crashed at these sites actually crashed at these sites, and to NEVER accepting "video fakery", even though your own position ENTAILS video fakery. So not only is your own position incoherent but you are committing Pilots to a position that is inconsistent with the available evidence. Proof #5.

(6) You deny knowledge of the existence of holographic technology, but apparently you have not made any effort to research the subject. I have pointed out that I have even interviewed a fellow who had recently taken a course on holography at Cambridge, named Stephen Brown, and given a link to the interview, where he assured me that the technology existed to project such an image under those conditions, which TM has confirmed, which is therefore Proof #6.

Do you have any idea how preposterous you come across by adopting these positions, by selecting evidence that supports your position but eliminating evidence that refutes it? You are taking a distinguished society of professionals, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and have committed it PERMANENTLY to a position that is PROVABLY FALSE in the name of "9/11 Truth". I am sorry, Rob, but you have turned yourself into a caricature of the man you used to be. And that is not the least of it.

Now you want to control public discussion of your and Pilots research, when there is no basis in the law or in common practice for attempting that. If John Lear allowed himself to be intimidated by your threats, that is a shame, not least of all because his views are closer to the truth than are yours. As a professional scholar, I know these issues and can better appreciate the absurdity of your position on this question as well. For the good of Pilots and 9/11 Truth, you should step down.

Jim

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 29 2012, 01:26 AM) *
As is a 767. Certainly, far from being comparative to an "http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&st=80&p=10804228&#entry10804228".

lol... that's like saying an out of control car cannot penetrate a house because it's structural resistance is based on it's foundation. First you claim it's the entire weight of the structure which is considered, now it's the foundation? Make up your mind.

(by the way, the core columns were not the structure initially penetrated. Hence the reason they call them core columns.)

How many Trees do you know in which the light from the Sun can penetrate?

If you hit a baseball with a tree, the baseball will fly far regardless if the tree is rooted.

If you swing the WTC like a bat using a 767 as a baseball, do you think you'll hit a homerun? Perhaps the 767 will just crumple to the ground after contact?


lol....this is just pointless.


Jim,

I no longer have time to go round and round with you tonight, especially since you have evaded every single one of my questions, and STILL cannot recall accurately the speeds reported.

It's simple Jim, stop using our work to support your theories.

I respect the fact you wish to explore theories. Please respect my position. Call me obtuse, a petty intellectual tyrant, any name you choose (and there are many over the past few pages). But the bottom line is, you do not have permission to use our work as our work does not validate your theories. John Lear understand this, you should too.

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/6185347?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0" width="400" height="300" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe><p>http://vimeo.com/6185347 from http://vimeo.com/user2112680 on http://vimeo.com.</p>

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 29 2012, 10:59 AM

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 29 2012, 10:40 AM) *
(1) Video fakery is any use of videos to convey a false impression. These videos have been used to claim that Flight 175 hit the South Tower. Since Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was, according to these videos, effortlessly entering the South Tower, even your own research establishing that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh implies that it cannot have been entering the South Tower, which in turn implies that video fakery was taking place. Proof #1.


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804300

QUOTE
(2) You insist that the speed of the aircraft shown in these videos--which is something like 560 mph,


Jim, it's not "something like". Get it right or don't say it at all. Your attention to detail is lacking., especially when I have provided the data for you numerous times.

QUOTE
which would have been impossible for a standard Boeing 767--would not have been impossible for a modified aircraft. But the use of a modified aircraft in a video that has been used to claim that Flight 175 hit the South Tower would necessarily be another form of video fakery, which you deny was taking place. That's Proof #2.


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804300

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804370


QUOTE
(3) The videos show an impossible entry into the building, which you maintain was correct based upon the animation provided by Purdue. But it shows the wrong number of floors intersected; does not represent the facade correctly; and ignores the internal structure of those floors. In fact, it does not even demonstrate that each floor was covered by 4-8" of concrete. But that means you are attempting to deny the use of video fakery using a fake video. Proof #3.


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804373

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804376

QUOTE
(4) In addition to the features I have previously enumerated, I have also noted that the plane has no strobe lights (John Lear), that it casts no shadow (Ben Collet), and that its left wing disappears and then reappears in some of these videos. To the best of my knowledge, you have never addressed any of these points, which means that, as with regard to (1), (2), and (3), you are selecting the evidence that supports your position and disregarding the rest. Proof #4.


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804418

QUOTE
(5) You are also committing Pilots for 9/11 Truth to NEVER accepting NPT ("No Plane Theory"), which means that none of the Boeings the government maintains crashed at these sites actually crashed at these sites, and to NEVER accepting "video fakery", even though your own position ENTAILS video fakery. So not only is your own position incoherent but you are committing Pilots to a position that is inconsistent with the available evidence. Proof #5.


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804403


QUOTE
(6) You deny knowledge of the existence of holographic technology, but apparently you have not made any effort to research the subject. I have pointed out that I have even interviewed a fellow who had recently taken a course on holography at Cambridge, named Stephen Brown, and given a link to the interview, where he assured me that the technology existed to project such an image under those conditions, which TM has confirmed, which is therefore Proof #6.


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804370

QUOTE
Do you have any idea how preposterous you come across by adopting these positions, by selecting evidence that supports your position but eliminating evidence that refutes it? You are taking a distinguished society of professionals, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and committing it PERMANENTLY to a position that is PROVABLY FALSE in the name of "9/11 Truth". I am sorry, Rob, but you have turned yourself into a caricature of the man you used to be. And that is not the least of it.


Goodbye Jim. Be sure to express that sentiment in every article you write which includes my work.

I'm tired of going round and round with you and enduring your ad homs and insults.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: tit2 Mar 29 2012, 10:59 AM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 27 2012, 11:18 AM) *
welds break. bolts shear. steel bends. a hologram does not have mass and hence cannot be used to explain the damage.



Flight 11 Crash (Wolfgang Staehle)

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

I guess this strange theory envisages that when the hologram reached the building at high speed, there is, at the same time, a detonation of explosives to simulate the damage allegedly done by the aircraft. But the explosions, resulting from the impact of the planes into the twin towers, do not show in my opinion, a detonation of explosives only. They show that this is mostly an explosion of jet fuel. I posted a video that explains it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcQBp264CME

It would have been necessary to put, beforehand, in the building, not only explosives, but also big quantity of fuel in the area that the hologram would reach to simulate the type of explosion and black smoke that we see in the twin towers after the impacts of aircrafts. In addition, the arrival, at high-speed, of the hologram on the tower must be perfectly synchronized with the detonation of explosives, otherwise everyone would see that the damage is done before or after the hologram has reached the building. Another question is how do the engine noise of the airplane without the airplane?

But if the holograms were used for the twin towers, it seems logical that they have also been used for the pentagon. In this case why there is no video showing the hologram of a plane for the Pentagon attack?


Posted by: amazed! Mar 29 2012, 11:23 AM

Thanks for the NTSB calculations Rob. They were fairly clear, but do range from 473 knots to 507.

With a modified airframe it seems to be possible to be that far over Vmo, but I wonder about those big fans acting as airbrakes in the thick air. In the end it doesn't matter because what happened happened.

I think Jim is missing your point that the towers were so 'thin' that light passes through the interior making it appear to be almost hollow. By the exoskeleton, the aluminum fuselage WAS shredded, after nose gear made the first hole and engines made the second hole. Further, the landing gear and engine pieces were not planted on the street, but ended up right where they should be according to what we saw.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 29 2012, 11:35 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 29 2012, 11:23 AM) *
Thanks for the NTSB calculations Rob. They were fairly clear, but do range from 473 knots to 507.


Actually, they range from 473 to 510.

473 was calculated based on taking measurements directly from the video screen. In other words, not a flat surface.

507 was calculated from video screen prints, a flat surface.

This compares to 510 knots as calculated by JFK, EWR and HPN ASR Radar.

I don't know about you, but when I'm shooting approaches to LGA, EWR, HPN or JFK in the soup, and given speed assignments by ATC for separation, I would rather they rely on Radar than measure distances on a video screen perhaps being shot by WNBC.

QUOTE
With a modified airframe it seems to be possible to be that far over Vmo, but I wonder about those big fans acting as airbrakes in the thick air.


Depends on internal engine construction. None of which can be determined by blurry youtube videos. At idle, sure, they are like Barn doors. At full thrust is a different story.

For example, the engines on the Dornier (my avatar) were derated to 6050 lbs of thrust per side. A turn of the wrench here and a few tweaks there, and the engine will produce much more power, all in the same exact nacelle. (actually, if I recall, such tweaks do not even need a wrench, rather a few clicks of a mouse to change settings in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FADEC).

Many car engines have some of the same restrictions. It's called a governor on normally aspirated engines. (for the laymen). You might be familiar with them on Constant Speed Props.


QUOTE
I think Jim is missing your point that the towers were so 'thin' that light passes through the interior making it appear to be almost hollow. By the exoskeleton, the aluminum fuselage WAS shredded, after nose gear made the first hole and engines made the second hole. Further, the landing gear and engine pieces were not planted on the street, but ended up right where they should be according to what we saw.


Agreed.

I http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/ObjectsFlyingOutOfSouthTower.jpg of the engine found on Murray St based on an estimated exit speed, height and gravity. It ended up right where it is supposed to be based on simple High School physics.

Posted by: amazed! Mar 29 2012, 02:49 PM

Sounds good to me Rob.

So that made him about 150 over Vmo, right?

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 29 2012, 02:57 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 29 2012, 02:49 PM) *
Sounds good to me Rob.

So that made him about 150 over Vmo, right?


155 if we are to get technical... as the above speeds reported are groundspeeds. When calculating winds, it is 515 KTAS.

But again, this is based on standard 767 limitations. For all we know modifications could have increased Vmo to 550 knots. Considering the http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18090 of the impacts, it is clear those planes were not standard 767's with a Vmo of 360 knots.

And let me just say, it is such a pleasure to speak with someone who understands aviation (considering what I have had to deal with over the past 10 or so pages). Thanks amazed. It's really nice that I have to only say things once and people get it.

It might be why our http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core? Just a thought....

Posted by: amazed! Mar 29 2012, 09:32 PM

Thank you Rob, and I hope that is the case for increased traffic.

I accept what the NTSB calculated, but something in my gut has trouble with that number. No biggie at all, because it happened.

But on that chart you published several times, with the red area, this number is waaayyy inside that red area as I recall.

But in the end, operation in the red area is certainly possible, but a penalty is paid with the structure, the airframe will be damaged, limitations are exceeded, though flight may continue.

Given that the airframe is going to enter a stainless steel strainer shorty, who cares? Can't get the emoticon to work on the Fast Reply. ;-)

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 29 2012, 10:41 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 29 2012, 09:32 PM) *
Thank you Rob, and I hope that is the case for increased traffic.

I accept what the NTSB calculated, but something in my gut has trouble with that number. No biggie at all, because it happened.

But on that chart you published several times, with the red area, this number is waaayyy inside that red area as I recall.

But in the end, operation in the red area is certainly possible, but a penalty is paid with the structure, the airframe will be damaged, limitations are exceeded, though flight may continue.

Given that the airframe is going to enter a stainless steel strainer shorty, who cares? Can't get the emoticon to work on the Fast Reply. ;-)


You may want to review this article.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed_part2.html

There hasn't been one aircraft in the history of aviation able to exceed it's Vmo by such a wide margin and maintained control, stability and/or held together. We have been waiting for years for 'duhbunkers' to find one.

This can only mean that the aircraft observed to strike the WTC had a higher Vmo than a standard 767, perhaps through modification, if the speeds reported are authentic. This means the story we have been told by the govt is BS.

See 9/11 World Trade Center Attack for further discussion and in depth analysis including precedent.

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 30 2012, 10:01 AM

I honestly can't see how preplanted explosives, whether directional or whatever could have carved out such a detailed signature of an aircraft on the facade of tower 2.



I mean, look at the imprint of the left wing. Those panels are bent but not broken. And the damage from the base of the vertical stabilizer can be clearly seen.

Posted by: Tamborine man Mar 30 2012, 12:56 PM

QUOTE
TM, the entire argument for holograms AFAIK is based upon a single video. "The Ghost Plane".
From this video and it's apparent "defiance" of the laws of physics, it's been decided that every other video and image is fake.


Well OSS, as i,ve said in previous posts, i personally believe the planes seen that day was only
"phantom" or 'unreal' planes, so naturally that's what i think we see in all of the videos.
I,m quite happy to accept that several videos could very well appear genuine to the unsuspecting
videographers who took them, and to the general public at large.

[/size]Rob came up with a very interesting analogy where he used one of the towers as a baseball bat!

Let us use WTC2, and rather imagine that the tower is now a 'lattice cricket bat'.
The alleged plane approaches with a speed of over 800 km/h. We swing the lattice- 'tower-bat' as
hard as possible and hits the plane head on. Could it not stand to reason that some of the weaker
parts of the plane would be smashed to pieces and spread outwards and away from the 'bat', while
some of the more heavier and solid main parts of the plane could have penetrated the front of the
lattice, and because of the considerable velocity of the plane, continued to also penetrate the lattice
on the back of the 'tower-bat' in the split second this would have taken!

Let us now imagine that the same plane comes toward us with same speed, and this time there's no
more any fuel left on the plane. Again we swing the 'tower-bat' and hit the plane as before, but now
the plane suddenly disappears. We put the 'tower-bat' down and discover to our surprise that the
plane has been embedded just inside of the front lattice. There's certainly some damage. The port
wing has separated and is in pieces. The rest of the plane has sustained considerable damage by the
parallel horizontal 'stiffening-spacers' 12 feet apart inside the 'tower-bat'.
We take all of the damaged plane out, and discover that a part is missing. It's a small engine part
from the starboard nacelle!

(Bear in mind that the faster the speed of the plane, the more easily it would have penetrated right
through the "lattice-tower-cricket-bat")!

From these two scenarios we can now choose which one of them more stands to reason; is more
logical; more appeals to common sense; and is more rational.

I have already made my choice, as you can see. Whatever choice others make, is entirely up to them!

QUOTE

The author also demonstrates how the impact damage can also be faked.
Seeing as how you're obviously not going to address this http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804353, I'll repeat the question (that you've also skipped over).



But, but OSS, didn't know i had to answer your post, as it wasn't addressed to me, i thought!
It was more about 'bunker-busters' and of which i got virtually no knowledge of, anyway!

QUOTE
If this video is "fake" or "manipulated" or even a total invention, how can an entire thesis be based upon a piece of "evidence" where the alleged impactand penetration can be shown to be inserted?
Why is one aspect of the video completely accepted while another is utterly rejected when the entire piece is "suspect"?


It's not really a problem for me, as i think all videos are "unreal". Some have been manipulated
by CGI and some have not, but in my opinion all have the "phantom" projection phenomenon in
common - as you know!

QUOTE
You don't see the contradiction in using what you see as government supplied "evidence"? The oppurtunity to manipulate you?


Well, I take anything coming from the government or its subsidiaries with a grand dose of salt.
I do not trust them at all.
Learned long long ago the absolute pleasure and value it is to think for one self - so therefore i
could never become influenced by anyone – unless first, of course, "harmony" Is present!


Cheers

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 30 2012, 01:05 PM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Mar 30 2012, 12:56 PM) *
Rob came up with a very interesting analogy where he used one of the towers as a baseball bat!



Let us use WTC2, and rather imagine that the tower is now a ‘lattice cricket bat’.

The alleged plane approaches with a speed of over 800 km/h. We swing the lattice- ‘tower-bat’ as


hard as possible and hits the plane head on.



Take your lattice bat and hit http://www.bpbsurplus.com/lc/images/pi_17987.jpeg as hard as you can.

Video tape it and post it here.

Then go out and buy your new bat.

Posted by: Tamborine man Mar 30 2012, 01:34 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 28 2012, 04:05 PM) *
Take your lattice bat and hit http://www.bpbsurplus.com/lc/images/pi_17987.jpeg as hard as you can.

Video tape it and post it here.

Then go out and buy your new bat.



I don't understand the analogy?

Rob, no need to get angry. It's only my opinion.

As you said yourself, "everybody here got their own opinions"!


Anyway i'm retiring from WTC. Hating the perpetual discord and bickering!

You are very welcome to remove all my posts in this thread if it pleases you.

Cheers

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 30 2012, 01:40 PM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Mar 30 2012, 01:34 PM) *
I don't understand the analogy?

Rob, no need to get angry. It's only my opinion.

As you said yourself, "everybody here got their own opinions"!


Anyway i'm retiring from WTC. Hating the perpetual discord and bickering!

You are very welcome to remove all my posts in this thread if it pleases you.

Cheers



lol... I'm not angry TM. I'm just trying to show you the results of your analogy and the real Laws Of Physics. No need for opinion when you can actually try it... right?

If you want to learn, try it. Video tape it and post it here.

You will break your bat and there will be minor damage to the Altimeter. It may not work anymore, but a few minor fixes and I'm sure it will be up and running in no time. smile.gif

And we don't delete posts on this forum. You know that TM... This is not ATS... salute.gif

Posted by: Tamborine man Mar 30 2012, 02:38 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 28 2012, 04:40 PM) *
lol... I'm not angry TM. I'm just trying to show you the results of your analogy and the real Laws Of Physics. No need for opinion when you can actually try it... right?

If you want to learn, try it. Video tape it and post it here.

You will break your bat and there will be minor damage to the Altimeter. It may not work anymore, but a few minor fixes and I'm sure it will be up and running in no time. smile.gif

And we don't delete posts on this forum. You know that TM... This is not ATS... salute.gif



Happy to hear you were not pissed off .... and to see your choice of emoticons!

Well, the 'bat' i would have to buy, would have to be as big and as wide, in proportion
to the altimeter, as the tower is to the plane. The 'bat' would also have to be the same
kind of 'hollow' as the tower is it. Where does one get hold of a bat like that!!

If the Altimeter comes toward me with same speed, proportion-wise to the speed of the
plane, then i got no doubt the Altimeter will go right through my 'special' bat, leaving a
gaping hole on both sides!

Think i can handle it .....just!, if you can prove me wrong! Maybe the 'Myth-busters' could
give it a try for us?? smile.gif

Cheers

Posted by: elreb Mar 30 2012, 03:20 PM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Mar 30 2012, 08:38 AM) *
Happy to hear you were not pissed off ....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=19879&view=findpost&p=10804449

Posted by: mrmitosis Mar 30 2012, 07:30 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 29 2012, 12:14 AM) *
Since you feel the need to share what Dennis is saying, perhaps you can provide a source quote?

Be sure to get permission for me to post his quotes as well.

Here's a hint Jim, Dennis doesn't support NPT either.


So, that's at least 3 people (Rob Balsamo, Anthony Lawson and Dennis Cimino) who Jim Fetzer has referenced in this thread to support No Planes Theory, even though not one of these 3 people actually supports No Planes Theory.

Jim, have you no shame?

Hey Mr Tamborine Man, although I disagree with your opinions about NPT, I still have a bunch of respect for you (as I'm sure most people here do) and in fact right now I am going to give you a big hug wub.gif

PS, don't forget to wind back your clock overnight! An extra hour's sleep before the 10am Sunday shift. Woot! Woot!

Posted by: elreb Mar 30 2012, 09:13 PM

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Mar 30 2012, 01:30 PM) *
I still have a bunch of respect for you (as I'm sure most people here do) and in fact right now I am going to give you a big hug

The way I see it…if the T-Man believes that a paper dragon, playing a “Didgeridoo” hit the towers…he has earned the right to voice his opinion!


Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 30 2012, 10:46 PM

I suppose I should point out where I have previously http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804275 before I post....

QUOTE
For the government nodding dogs skulking around this thread. This is what a real forum with real people looks like. Take your rara skirts off and join the party. Bob.


QUOTE (TMan)
But, but OSS, didn't know i had to answer your post, as it wasn't addressed to me, i thought!
It was more about 'bunker-busters' and of which i got virtually no knowledge of, anyway


Nor do I TM, but they are self explanatory. Just read it?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&st=160&p=10804353&#entry10804353

I also came across this video which pretty much sums up what I was trying to convey in that post

Flight 175 - Hijacked Boeing Or High Tech Military Weapon

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

QUOTE (TMan)
QUOTE (onesliceshort)
If this video is "fake" or "manipulated" or even a total invention, how can an entire thesis be based upon a piece of "evidence" where the alleged impact and penetration can be shown to be inserted?
Why is one aspect of the video completely accepted (edit: the impact) while another is utterly rejected (the aircraft itself) when the entire piece is "suspect"?

It's not really a problem for me, as i think all videos are "unreal". Some have been manipulated by CGI and some have not, but in my opinion all have the "phantom" projection phenomenon in common - as you know!


You've answered my question in your next statement.

QUOTE (TMan)
Well, I take anything coming from the government or its subsidiaries with a grand dose of salt. I do not trust them at all.


If, as you say, "all have phantom projection phenomenon in common", then those same videos have had the greasey mits of government all over them.
With that same logic or opinion, the video in its entirity should be rejected.

I'm not playing mind games or busting your stones TM. And I know it's pointless trying to change your mind. I just don't buy it.

What swung it for me was all of the other anomalies and paths of investigation where real answers can be demanded, have been thrown under the umbrella of "video/image fakery" and NPT. Not least the long list of legitimate questions this forum has brought up.

That and the damage scars that have been caused to the facade.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcsouthtowerzoomhole.jpg

Could explosives of any kind have made the damage caused where the left wing impact scar is? Indented but not broken? Or the slice where the base of the vertical stabilizer was shown to have hit?




Posted by: elreb Mar 30 2012, 11:34 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 30 2012, 04:46 PM) *
I suppose I should point out...

No "special flying object" struck the Pentagon = Pure dog manure...We call this selective reasoning…

According to you the video, light poles, taxi driver and whatever else…were all “faked”.

I have no problem with this…if you could explain how they did it!

Why don’t you pick on Jesse Ventura? He said a missile hit the Pentagon!


PSS: Who the hell is Bob?

Posted by: Tamborine man Mar 31 2012, 04:22 AM

mrmitosis and elreb, thank you for your "Kindness" ....in both definitions of the word! thumbsup.gif

OSS,
will come back to your very interesting post later.

Have just been 'heartlessly' interrupted by "she who Must be obeyed"!

Cheers

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 31 2012, 08:28 AM

QUOTE (elreb @ Mar 31 2012, 04:34 AM) *
No "special flying object" struck the Pentagon = Pure dog manure...We call this selective reasoning…

According to you the video, light poles, taxi driver and whatever else…were all “faked”.

I have no problem with this…if you could explain how they did it!

Why don’t you pick on Jesse Ventura? He said a missile hit the Pentagon!


PSS: Who the hell is Bob?


Mind pointing out where I said "pure dog manure"?

We've had this conversation countless times elreb.
People actually got off their backsides and went to the actual site of the Pentagon black op.
People actually pulled themselves out of their armchairs and spoke to multlple witnesses.
People actually tried to cut through the fog of "theories" about the Pentagon up until 2006.

I actually believed that a missile had struck the building. Then an A3SkyWarrior.

These people who run the risk of arrest found that all witnesses who were actually there (and not inventions or embellishments of the whore media), described seeing a commercial aircraft, or an aircraft of those dimensions.

These people found the same recurring factor in all witnesses interviewed. They either categorically placed the aircraft on a course that can't physically or aerodynamically line up with the directional damage, or described major contradictions in the OCT.

These people found that there was no simultaneous aircraft as the one witnessed flying NOC.

These people found nobody who saw a missile. Nobody.

That is evidence.

What you're proposing has no legs.

In saying that there was a "missile" or "second plane", you not only confuse the issue, but you contradict yourself.

1. The aircraft was not witnessed on the path through the lightpoles. In fact there are no verifiable witnesses to the poles being struck (for the former reason).

2. The missile theory also requires the lightpole area to have been "faked" as it couldn't possibly have knocked them over.

3. The missile theory requires the same taxi driver, who denies to this day being on the bridge where the poles were down, to be lying.

You seem have no problem with "video fakery" and NPT being touted here, which would involve scores of named authors of multiple images and videos being involved in a high risk elaborate hoax, having the holy grail of "proof" that could see gallows being hammered together in the morning, yet still alive.

Yet, you are unwilling to believe, based on evidence that the perps threw a few fucking lightpoles on the ground, possibly during witnessed secret service ops around the helipad and lawn area "for the visit of Bush to the Pentagon" on the 10th? Or the witnessed "removal" or repositioning of trailers in front of the "impact hole"?

That the possibility that they detonated explosives with a scrapped Boeing in one of those empty, renovated rooms or within the trailer is beyond the realms of your imagination, but that the prospect of a Hollywood style, hologram and 40 deep state operatives within the photography and video business (and then some) deserves a hearing?

rolleyes.gif

PPS "Bob" is a government loyalist that haunts this forum but hasn't the balls to post here.

Posted by: amazed! Mar 31 2012, 03:05 PM

Rob

Regarding the airspeed question, I was thinking yesterday after leaving Sun 'n Fun in Lakeland, that somehow to me, the 757 approach just did not LOOK like 500 knots to me.

Just watched a bunch of high speed passes by A-4, F-18 and others at Lakeland. Somehow that Boeing just didn't look like 500 knots. ?

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 31 2012, 03:58 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 31 2012, 03:05 PM) *
Rob

Regarding the airspeed question, I was thinking yesterday after leaving Sun 'n Fun in Lakeland, that somehow to me, the 757 approach just did not LOOK like 500 knots to me.

Just watched a bunch of high speed passes by A-4, F-18 and others at Lakeland. Somehow that Boeing just didn't look like 500 knots. ?



Which 757 approach are you referring to?


Posted by: amazed! Mar 31 2012, 08:36 PM

The approach to the tower. The only part we got to see.


Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 31 2012, 08:46 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 31 2012, 08:36 PM) *
The approach to the tower. The only part we got to see.



Exactly which "tower" did a 757 approach? And from which angle and distance did you 'get to see' which "looked" slower than an A-4 and F/A-18 at an airshow?


Posted by: 23investigator Mar 31 2012, 09:30 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Apr 1 2012, 04:35 AM) *
Rob

Regarding the airspeed question, I was thinking yesterday after leaving Sun 'n Fun in Lakeland, that somehow to me, the 757 approach just did not LOOK like 500 knots to me.

Just watched a bunch of high speed passes by A-4, F-18 and others at Lakeland. Somehow that Boeing just didn't look like 500 knots. ?


Dear 'amazed'.

Interesting observation.

Think, Mr Balsamo is trying to tell you, he considers the aircraft at the South Tower was a Boeing 767.
The video he included showing the --what ever it was-- that went past that fast at the airshow over water, certainly looked to go very fast, mind you it was a bit closer to the camera, most likely.

Am doing some work on this subject, currently, when it is further advanced will post the considerations.

Certainly, the speed is an interesting consideration, as video speed should match, radar speed, etc.
One, has to wonder which came first.
Mr Cinimo, may have some "colourful" thought s on that, (luv reading the man's essays), he no doubt really understands the "subject".
Can well understand why he puts such little 'value' in the published information.

Robert S

Posted by: elreb Apr 1 2012, 12:21 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 31 2012, 02:28 AM) *
Mind pointing out where I said "pure dog manure"?

Your reply is beyond ridiculous!

It is almost convoluted…

I have not said anything! [Yet]

There are no witnesses on either side of the subject.

My point was that “Tamborine Man” earned the right to believe whatever he wishes to believe”! Apparently…this bothers you!

I do not agree with the T-Man on every subject and you would know this if you ever got involved with “Life after Death”, Dragon Blood-line” or “Global Perspectives”.

Your argument shows that you do not read very well…

A shill is a plant or stooge who publicly does not disclose who he or she is!

A shill is “Pure dog manure”.

Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 1 2012, 02:03 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 29 2012, 01:46 AM) *
I suppose I should point out where I have previously http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804275 before I post....


Nor do I TM, but they are self explanatory. Just read it?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&st=160&p=10804353&#entry10804353

I also came across this video which pretty much sums up what I was trying to convey in that post

Flight 175 - Hijacked Boeing Or High Tech Military Weapon

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


Yes OSS, i've read all your posts and seen all the videos you have linked to!

I don't personally believe either missiles or buster-bunkers have been used at WTC.
Think that all the different types of 'explosives' used, were pre-planted and synchronized
with the pretend impact by the "phantom" plane.

Have for a long time closely followed all the research done about the "Gelatin B team's"
activities on the 91floor in Tower 1 prior to 9/11. Find it an absolutely fascinating and
compelling topic. Much more interesting info has recently been added, which definitely
will cause many more peoples eyes 'to shut wide open'!
Have you too been following this, OSS?

QUOTE
If, as you say, "all have phantom projection phenomenon in common", then those same videos have had the greasey mits of government all over them.
With that same logic or opinion, the video in its entirity should be rejected.

I'm not playing mind games or busting your stones TM. And I know it's pointless trying to change your mind. I just don't buy it.

What swung it for me was all of the other anomalies and paths of investigation where real answers can be demanded, have been thrown under the umbrella of "video/image fakery" and NPT. Not least the long list of legitimate questions this forum has brought up.

That and the damage scars that have been caused to the facade.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcsouthtowerzoomhole.jpg

Could explosives of any kind have made the damage caused where the left wing impact scar is? Indented but not broken? Or the slice where the base of the vertical stabilizer was shown to have hit?


What you're inferring above and in your comments to elreb below, make me think that
you perhaps must completely have misunderstood what i mean by the term 'hologram'
projection, so please let me clarify.

I think of course (as the DARPA paper sets out), that the 'projection' was done quite a
distance away, far from prying eyes, and with only a small group of accomplishes
participating.
I wouldn't think that the Naudet's, Hazerkhani, Fairbanks, Taylor or any of the various
helicopter crews had any idea, that what they were actually filming was anything else
but what they thought it to be, namely a real plane! I see no reason whatsoever why
these people should have been told. Better to have kept them in darkness, together
with everyone else about 'this deception', i'd say!

QUOTE
You seem have no problem with "video fakery" and NPT being touted here, which would involve scores of named authors of multiple images and videos being involved in a high risk elaborate hoax, having the holy grail of "proof" that could see gallows being hammered together in the morning, yet still alive.


In one video i saw, the plane appears out of nowhere in the sky 7-8 seconds (iirc)
before "impact". Can't remember where i saw it though!

On a close-up of WTC1, just after the explosion, something 'strange' happens where
the starboard wingtip should have entered. A small nearly horizontal row of 'fires'
appear. Small 'cutter-charges' perhaps?

Cheers

PS!
I think the plane coming over the annex at the pentagon was real.
Am not wholly sure about the plane at Shanksville!

Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 1 2012, 02:28 AM

Hi Elreb and Onesliceshort, i really like you both, so please calm down, will you?

Just use the "quote function" properly - that should sort this 'shit' out .... wink.gif

Cheers

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 1 2012, 08:19 AM

QUOTE (elreb @ Apr 1 2012, 05:21 AM) *
Your reply is beyond ridiculous!

It is almost convoluted…

I have not said anything! [Yet]

There are no witnesses on either side of the subject.


Very touchy Elreb. Do you always get this wound up whenever somebody doesn't answer your two liner wise cracks with reasoning?

And mind expanding on the "there are no witnesses on either side of the subject"??

I know there are no witnesses to any "flying object" of any kind on the official path through the lightpoles.
And that all witnesses with a view of the aircraft (singular) place it away from that area.

Can you name any witnesses that counter them?

Let's see what you originally said.

QUOTE (elreb)
No "special flying object" struck the Pentagon = Pure dog manure...We call this selective reasoning…


First off http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html?

QUOTE
Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs


My "beliefs" regarding the Pentagon op is based on independently verified and corroborated witness testimony, the total blanket censorship and withholding of evidence and the alleged impact damage itself.

QUOTE (elreb)
According to you the video, light poles, taxi driver and whatever else…were all “faked”. 

I have no problem with this…if you could explain how they did it! 


"According to you"?

Here was my original post..

QUOTE (onesliceshort)
We've had this conversation countless times elreb.
People actually got off their backsides and went to the actual site of the Pentagon black op.
People actually pulled themselves out of their armchairs and spoke to multlple witnesses.
People actually tried to cut through the fog of "theories" about the Pentagon up until 2006.

I actually believed that a missile had struck the building. Then an A3SkyWarrior. 

These people who run the risk of arrest found that all witnesses who were actually there (and not inventions or embellishments of the whore media), described seeing a commercial aircraft, or an aircraft of those dimensions.

These people found the same recurring factor in all witnesses interviewed. They either categorically placed the aircraft on a course that can't physically or aerodynamically line up with the directional damage, or described major contradictions in the OCT.

These people found that there was no simultaneous aircraft as the one witnessed flying NOC.

These people found nobody who saw a missile. Nobody.

That is evidence.

What you're proposing has no legs.

In saying that there was a "missile" or "second plane", you not only confuse the issue, but you contradict yourself.

1. The aircraft was not witnessed on the path through the lightpoles. In fact there are no verifiable witnesses to the poles being struck (for the former reason).

2. The missile theory also requires the lightpole area to have been "faked" as it couldn't possibly have knocked them over.

3. The missile theory requires the same taxi driver, who denies to this day being on the bridge where the poles were down, to be lying.

You seem have no problem with "video fakery" and NPT being touted here, which would involve scores of named authors of multiple images and videos being involved in a high risk elaborate hoax, having the holy grail of "proof" that could see gallows being hammered together in the morning, yet still alive. 

Yet, you are unwilling to believe, based on evidence that the perps threw a few fucking lightpoles on the ground, possibly during witnessed secret service ops around the helipad and lawn area "for the visit of Bush to the Pentagon" on the 10th? Or the witnessed "removal" or repositioning of trailers in front of the "impact hole"? 

That the possibility that they detonated explosives with a scrapped Boeing in one of those empty, renovated rooms or within the trailer is beyond the realms of your imagination, but that the prospect of a Hollywood style, hologram and 40 deep state operatives within the photography and video business (and then some) deserves a hearing?

 rolleyes.gif 


Read through the research at this forum

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showforum=6

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=104

Or watch the video presentation

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

The comment regarding the secret service being in the area the day before (Sean Boger in the heliport):

http://www.thepentacon.com/neit299.pdf

QUOTE
On September 10th, it was kind of busy because the President flew out.  He flew out that Monday, and whenever the President flies out, it is always a dog and pony show, you know.

You have got the Secret Service guys coming around and the dogs sniffing, and everything.  So it was kind of like a big old deal.  And so on September 10th, you know it was really kind of busy.  And he was scheduled to come back on September 11th.

So we know it was going to be another dog and pony show, but we didn't thik it was going to happen that soon.

Sean Boger


PenRen contractor Michael DiPaula is on record as having said that the trailers were moved on the 10th September.


QUOTE (elreb)
My point was that “Tamborine Man” earned the right to believe whatever he wishes to believe”! Apparently…this bothers you!

I do not agree with the T-Man on every subject and you would know this if you ever got involved with “Life after Death”, Dragon Blood-line” or “Global Perspectives”.

Your argument shows that you do not read very well…


Tamborine Man knows that I value his opinions (I hope), but not once did I ridicule him or his beliefs. I went out of my way to show him the flaws with NPT in a constructive way. And I think I've done that.
You're the one being the asshole here.

QUOTE (elreb)
A shill is a plant or stooge who publicly does not disclose who he or she is!

A shill is “Pure dog manure”


So, people who disclose their identities are therefore not shills? Gotcha.
That's an insult to the majority of forum members here. My reasons for remaining anonymous are purely personal. As I said, Rob and those I confide in know my identity. Not because of some dark, malevolent reason but because I don't want creeps and stalkers torturing my family and their personal details. Got it?

And I'm "pure dog manure"? Gotcha.

Unbunch your cotton panties elreb and show me your evidence that a "flying object" struck the Pentagon.

And grow up.

Posted by: amazed! Apr 1 2012, 10:49 AM

I'm sorry guys--my bad.

767 approach to the tower.

And since the radar info agrees with the NTSB calculations based on video, that seems to settle the question. The elephant in the room is the large margin by which Vmo was exceeded. One of those unsolved mysteries I guess. blink.gif

In the NTSB calculations, I wonder if there could be any sort of parallax error?

Posted by: 23investigator Apr 2 2012, 07:19 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Apr 2 2012, 12:19 AM) *
I'm sorry guys--my bad.

767 approach to the tower.

And since the radar info agrees with the NTSB calculations based on video, that seems to settle the question. The elephant in the room is the large margin by which Vmo was exceeded. One of those unsolved mysteries I guess. blink.gif

In the NTSB calculations, I wonder if there could be any sort of parallax error?


Dear 'amazed'

We all live in a 'world' of "parallax", unless we are rooted to the spot, in an unmoving "vista'.

Robert S

Posted by: GroundPounder Apr 2 2012, 04:41 PM

as much as it pains me to do this, well, it has to be done. a certain poster here, had something on veteranstoday that was, ah, unflattering, sparse and quite frankly odious. it's the same old npt thang.
you know, the one that goes: if a creature is eating grass in a field it must be a cow. and for those of the logic challenged persuasion- that's just wrong as everyone knows, because any of a number of creatures eat grass including cows.

so instead of adopting a harmony building approach such as 'ngfp', for 'no government fable planes' or 'nosp' for 'no official story planes' or myriad other acronyms available and perhaps generally agreed upon, our crusader begins his don quixote 'npt/hologram' gospel tirade scorched earth policy quest. why? ego? huh? is that it? the truth be damned as long as i'm the loudest. you made your bed, you sleep in it.

i am only one tiny voice, but i'm NOT sticking up for you anymore.

Posted by: amazed! Apr 2 2012, 05:39 PM

Got to agree with you GP.

I thought today's article at VT was off base, and rather a shrill and desperate attempt to save face by Jim Fetzer.

Why in christ's name he can't just use specific language I don't know. And until somebody can show us a hologram machine with sound effects that could work on that scale, all the talk about holograms is getting past silly.

Posted by: elreb Apr 2 2012, 06:03 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Apr 2 2012, 10:41 AM) *
if a creature is eating grass in a field it must be a cow.

I was thinking Bison or Buffalo…

I have always liked brother “GP” and he even has a profile.

I can not believe that I was actually a recruiter for the Marine Corp back in 1970…

The nice thing about Maui is we don’t wear underwear or shoes.



Posted by: rob balsamo Apr 2 2012, 06:17 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Apr 2 2012, 05:39 PM) *
Got to agree with you GP.

I thought today's article at VT was off base, and rather a shrill and desperate attempt to save face by Jim Fetzer.

Why in christ's name he can't just use specific language I don't know. And until somebody can show us a hologram machine with sound effects that could work on that scale, all the talk about holograms is getting past silly.



I just briefly skimmed Fetzer's latest attack piece. Is it any surprise it was posted on April Fool's Day?

lol

"was it a mistake to publish with Fetzer? I don't think so. He and I have had disagreements over some issues but we don't scream at each other or
get into that betari box over those. I cite the video fakery in my audio interview not in this VT piece. but in no way does anything I WROTE ever infer that no planes were used." - Dennis Cimino


Bolding mine.

There is much more. We will see how this plays out.

By the way Jim, I thank you for making it clear we do not support any theory that you offer. You may want to pass that on to people like Lawson and Bursill, who have been attacking us for years as NPTer's. Thanks!


"this last piece [written by Jim Fetzer] I think I would have rather not been a part of..." - Dennis Cimino

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 2 2012, 08:51 PM

Let' look at Jim Fetzer's "reason and rationality"

QUOTE
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/01/reason-and-rationality-in-public-debate-the-case-of-rob-balsamo/175diagram/

What it shows is that Flight 175 was intersecting with eight (8) floors that consisted of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and to the external support columns at the other, where each floor was covered with 4-8” of concrete, representing an acre of concrete apiece and posing enormous horizontal resistance to any airplane’s penetration into the building.


Just an example of what was posted in this thread discussing the many flaws in his claims:

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 30 2012, 03:01 PM) *
I honestly can't see how preplanted explosives, whether directional or whatever could have carved out such a detailed signature of an aircraft on the facade of tower 2.



I mean, look at the imprint of the left wing. Those panels are bent but not broken. And the damage from the base of the vertical stabilizer can be clearly seen.


Was that post of mine a "reasonable and rational" observation?

Posted by: rob balsamo Apr 2 2012, 09:01 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Apr 2 2012, 08:51 PM) *
Let' look at Jim Fetzer's "reason and rationality"



Fetzer is also a confirmed liar.

Jim claims in his article....


"As an example of Pilots’ concerns, they offered the following caveat, suggesting they were parsing some language:

* Pilotsfor911truth.org does not make the claim that “No Boeing 757 hit the
Pentagon”. We have analyzed the Flight Data Recorder data provided by the
 NTSB and have shown factual analysis of that data. We do not offer theory.


While we do not make this claim in these words, the analysis we present on
 the basis of the NTSB’s own data factually contradicts the official account
 that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon–if trends are continued beyond end of data
records–and therefore supports the inference that American Airlines Flight 
77 did not hit the building based upon that data."


Clearly the "caveat" Jim is referencing is the text which I have colored red.

Now here are the facts...,

Jim Fetzer wrote that "caveat" when I objected to his article on the topic. In fact, Jim wrote every "http://pilotsfor911truth.org/article_corrections.html" when I objected to his article.

It is true I agreed to it in order to not create too many waves at the time (my bad), but it was not a "caveat" written by "Pilots" as Jim now misleadingly suggests in his current article. Furthermore, Jim Fetzer, still to this day, does not understand the difference between a flight number and a tail number, nor can understand simple data.. (which many times has been offered to him) ....yet he claims to have taught critical thinking? Really?

I wonder when Jim Fetzer will get tired of losing support within the ranks of people he considers his "natural allies". lol


Jim,, in case you didn't notice years ago.. .you were never my "ally". In reality....You have been nothing but a passive thorn in my side. Notice I have never linked to your work, let alone your site.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/media.html

(By the way, I have all the emails saved from when Fetzer pulled his last BS trying to rope P4T into unsubstantiated claims... feel free to email me and I will have no problem forwarding you the whole exchange).

Posted by: mrmitosis Apr 2 2012, 09:40 PM

Professor Jim Fetzer, guru of reason, rationality, metaphysics and epistimology, interpreted the purpose behind this topic exactly wrong:

"...I came as a rather surprising that Pilots for 9/11 Truth was featuring a new thread on its forum entitled, “Debunkers respond to Dennis Cimino”, which was dedicated to attacking (“debunking”) the article we had published..."

No, Jim. The thread was started as a means of dealing with comments made by debunkers in response to Dennis' article. I had an inclination that those responses (copy and pasted in italics on the OP) must be folly, so I did what seemed sensible at the time, which was to consult people who are qualified aviation professionals who have spent time researching the 9/11 attacks and the anomalies.

As it turned out, I handled it on my own. But it amazes me that Jim thinks I strolled into this forum for the purpose of attacking Dennis and his article, when anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the English language would realise that the opposite is the case. I think we can all agree that words like "attacking" and "defending" have quite different meanings.

Jim Fetzer is the Hani Hanjour of scholarship. Walks the walk, talks the talk, but fails the basics.

English Comprehension 101, Jim. Enrol, pay attention in class this time, and re-sit the exam. We can take it from there.

Posted by: rob balsamo Apr 2 2012, 10:07 PM

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Apr 2 2012, 09:40 PM) *
Professor Jim Fetzer, guru of reason, rationality, metaphysics and epistimology, interpreted the purpose behind this topic exactly wrong:

"...I came as a rather surprising that Pilots for 9/11 Truth was featuring a new thread on its forum entitled, “Debunkers respond to Dennis Cimino”, which was dedicated to attacking (“debunking”) the article we had published..."

No, Jim. The thread was started as a means of dealing with comments made by debunkers in response to Dennis' article. I had an inclination that those responses (copy and pasted in italics on the OP) must be folly, so I did what seemed sensible at the time, which was to consult people who are qualified aviation professionals who have spent time researching the 9/11 attacks and the anomalies.

As it turned out, I handled it on my own. But it amazes me that Jim thinks I strolled into this forum for the purpose of attacking Dennis and his article, when anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the English language would realise that the opposite is the case. I think we can all agree that words like "attacking" and "defending" have quite different meanings.

Jim Fetzer is the Hani Hanjour of scholarship. Walks the walk, talks the talk, but fails the basics.

English Comprehension 101, Jim. Enrol, pay attention in class this time, and re-sit the exam. We can take it from there.



Yes, and the real sad part of it all, is that you were trying to defend Dennis when creating this thread.

"anyway, I had very little control over the art work here. that's the price I pay for publishing with a co-author or sponsor.


in any case, that's the reason for these other photos. all of them but '2' are not mine. they're FETZERS!

.........

so you guys can distance yourself from it." - Dennis Cimino



"but they can't heap me into the 'no planer' gang quite yet. that's not me.

planes were used." - Dennis Cimino



"I noted a few people actually did defend me a bit. because they actually read the stuff and didn't immediately attack my ass for no good reason.

being affiliated with Fetzer is not SIAMESE TWINS turf.

I'm not joined at the hip. ...... that does NOT put me in the 'no planer' camp." - Dennis Cimino


The only thing Jim Fetzer has done.... is accuse those of which he sources to support his theories.... as "obtuse" and an "intellectual tyrant", among other name calling.

This is called cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Fetzer reminds me of the polar opposite of JREF... such as Keith "Beachnut" Beachy, who cannot determine the difference between a http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20979&view=findpost&p=10793515. Especially given the fact that Jim Fetzer STILL cannot determine the speeds reported, even after given such data on a http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804354

Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 3 2012, 12:19 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 31 2012, 11:51 PM) *
Let' look at Jim Fetzer's "reason and rationality"



Just an example of what was posted in this thread discussing the many flaws in his claims:



Was that post of mine a "reasonable and rational" observation?



Hi OSS,

have a look at this video, and please tell me what you think?





Cheers

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 3 2012, 03:56 PM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Apr 3 2012, 05:19 PM) *
Hi OSS,

have a look at this video, and please tell me what you think?


<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1eqXb2CTu50?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Cheers


Hi TM,

I see a gradual destruction of a standard aircraft travelling at runway speed. The wheels are pulled away from underneath, the fuselage is dragging, slowing it down, a desintegration before the wings are shorn.

I know the aircraft frame is fragile (and an uncle of mine always said that if ever I heard the "brace, brace" call, the reason for it was really to kiss your ass goodbye lol) but I don't think you can realistically compare the two events. IMO.

What do you see here TM?



Particularly to the left extremity?


Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 3 2012, 08:56 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Apr 1 2012, 06:56 PM) *
Hi TM,

I see a gradual destruction of a standard aircraft travelling at runway speed. The wheels are pulled away from underneath, the fuselage is dragging, slowing it down, a desintegration before the wings are shorn.

I know the aircraft frame is fragile (and an uncle of mine always said that if ever I heard the "brace, brace" call, the reason for it was really to kiss your ass goodbye lol) but I don't think you can realistically compare the two events. IMO.

What do you see here TM?



Particularly to the left extremity?



Actually, that's what i was referring to!

Look again in the video and see how the timber poles 'effortlessly' slice through the wing,

even with this "slow" speed of the plane!

Cheers

Posted by: elreb Apr 3 2012, 09:39 PM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Apr 3 2012, 02:56 PM) *
Look again in the video and see how the timber poles 'effortlessly' slice through the wing,

Inadvertently, you have “almost” proven that the airplanes were not standard issue.

These critters were special made to cut steel.

Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 3 2012, 10:04 PM

Probably the worst case of "video fakery" i have ever seen! Obviously CGI manufactured.

Look from 0:30 onwards. See how small the windows are in relation to the people 'hanging' out of them.

In the actual windows, a fully grown person could with ease stand upright behind the glazing.

Here, it looks like the distance between floors would be no more than around 6 feet - if even that!


The "jumpers" are so obviously faked as well.

Some of them even 'forget' to fall straight down, but instead chooses to 'angle' out from the building!





Cheers

Posted by: mrmitosis Apr 3 2012, 10:28 PM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Apr 3 2012, 09:04 PM) *
The "jumpers" are so obviously faked as well.


All I can say is that it must take a very sick human being to fabricate their own footage of people jumping to their deaths from the burning WTC. Especially when real videos already exist. I mean, who does that type of stuff for kicks?

Or maybe that's the point you're making Mr Tamborine Man? Do you believe all the footage of jumpers were CGI - not just this one?

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 3 2012, 10:48 PM

Here's an FOIA released image of floor 47 of WTC1



The windows on some levels were relatively "small".

Posted by: mrmitosis Apr 3 2012, 10:56 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Apr 2 2012, 09:07 PM) *
Yes, and the real sad part of it all, is that you were trying to defend Dennis when creating this thread.


Yep - tragic. But also a little bit hilarious. Tragilarious.

I'm telling you right now, NPT and video fakery was the LAST conversational trajectory I expected this topic to follow. Dennis makes absolutely NO MENTION of phantom planes in his article, and yet Fetzer goes from zero to retard in under 5 seconds in his first response on page 1. I seriously doubt that the discussion would have been steered off topic in that way if he'd never posted anything.

If Dennis Cimino and P4T's research does not lead to an NPT conclusion, then Jim should NOT be citing it as supporting evidence for his claims. For all I know, he might have Newton's Laws of Motion on his side when it comes to the tower impacts and what should have happened to the planes. But he should be drawing upon that SEPARATELY, because issues such as the impossible reported speeds clearly have NOTHING to do with it.

People should be encouraged to talk about whatever it is they believe. But it would have been nice if Dennis' arguments and the rebuttals to them were fleshed out a little bit before such radical leaps of logic made an appearance on this thread.

OK, I've had my crybaby2.gif

I'm just sayin'.

Posted by: rob balsamo Apr 3 2012, 11:24 PM

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Apr 3 2012, 10:56 PM) *
For all I know, he might have Newton's Laws of Motion on his side when it comes to the tower impacts and what should have happened to the planes.


Fetzer does not have Newtons Laws nor any Laws of physics on his side.

As http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804376, a Standard 767 would be carrying more than enough energy to cause the damaged observed if such an aircraft could achieve the speeds reported. The key factor here is the speed. Energy increases exponentially as velocity increases. Something Jim Fetzer just cannot comprehend.

Jim does not understand basic physics, math, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804381 when given to him http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&st=160&p=10804354&#entry10804354.

The main problem Jim has is that he thinks a modern airliner is more like "http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&st=80&p=10804228&#entry10804228", than an http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804229. He also thinks the entire weight of a stationary structure is a factor when calculating dynamic collisions. He is wrong. This is why he hasn't gotten any support for the past 5 or 6 years attempting to push such theories, and instead has attacked nearly every single person who doesn't subscribe to his theories. There was a mass exodus from Scholars when Jim attempted to pull this crap back in 2006. Does he really think he will gain more support now?

I was basically the last one he had left who respected the fact that he wishes to explore any theory he wants. Most forums have banned NPT discussion. I have told him repeatedly over the years that P4T as an organization does not offer theory nor endorse any theory, this includes NPT. It has been on the top of our home page since 2006.

Jim is upset now because he is trying as hard as he can to find speakers for his upcoming conference. Hence his rapid fire of articles over the past few weeks. Many of the speakers he invited has declined, including myself. So naturally, Jim has no choice but to now write hit pieces attacking me personally.

Jim's credibility is shot within the "movement".

And as you can see from the quotes above, Dennis also does not subscribe to NPT. In the interest of historical accuracy, if anyone would like copies of his emails containing those quotes, feel free to email me and I will forward them to you.

Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 3 2012, 11:49 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Apr 2 2012, 01:48 AM) *
Here's an FOIA released image of floor 47 of WTC1



The windows on some levels were relatively "small".


And then you show me a standard window around 61/2 feet in height, OSS!!

I don't understand??

Cheers

Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 3 2012, 11:57 PM

It appears that Ace Baker has started to get 'serious'.

A welcome change i think.

His unmasking of the 'Purdue fraud' is a Classic!




Cheers

Posted by: rob balsamo Apr 4 2012, 12:05 AM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Apr 3 2012, 11:57 PM) *
It appears that Ace Baker has started to get 'serious'.

A welcome change i think.

His unmasking of the 'Purdue fraud' is a Classic!


Cheers


Didn't Ace Baker off himself on http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=frgbld&gs_nf=1&mss=ace%20baker%20s&cp=17&gs_id=71&xhr=t&q=ace+baker+suicide&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=ace+baker+suicide&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=ce7868657b5cb0e2&biw=1280&bih=637?



Yep, there's a real stable character...lol

(for those wondering why I'm laughing at the guy, it's because the whole thing was a hoax.. Ace staged his own suicide live on air)

Ace stopped by here a few times in the past. He got his ass handed to him. Do some searches.

Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 4 2012, 12:32 AM

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Apr 2 2012, 01:28 AM) *
All I can say is that it must take a very sick human being to fabricate their own footage of people jumping to their deaths from the burning WTC. Especially when real videos already exist. I mean, who does that type of stuff for kicks?

Or maybe that's the point you're making Mr Tamborine Man? Do you believe all the footage of jumpers were CGI - not just this one?



Yes and yes mrmitosis, i,m starting to believe that to be so, after reading and watching this thread

linked to over at LRF, (where i also found the Ace Baker video).

http://letsrollforums.com/further-thoughts-gelatin-b-t27830.html

Hope you at least will give the pages a scroll and a 'glance', if nothing else!

Cheers

Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 4 2012, 12:45 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Apr 2 2012, 03:05 AM) *
Didn't Ace Baker off himself on http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=frgbld&gs_nf=1&mss=ace%20baker%20s&cp=17&gs_id=71&xhr=t&q=ace+baker+suicide&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=ace+baker+suicide&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=ce7868657b5cb0e2&biw=1280&bih=637?



Yep, there's a real stable character...lol

(for those wondering why I'm laughing at the guy, it's because the whole thing was a hoax.. Ace staged his own suicide live on air)

Ace stopped by here a few times in the past. He got his ass handed to him. Do some searches.


Yes it was quite an immature silly stunt (emphasis on immature) he did in those days.

Looks like he has changed his views dramatically since then, and finally 'grown up'.

So because of this Rob, i hope you'll watch the video to the end!

Cheers

Posted by: rob balsamo Apr 4 2012, 01:01 AM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Apr 4 2012, 12:45 AM) *
Yes it was quite an immature silly stunt (emphasis on immature) he did in those days.

Looks like he has changed his views dramatically since then, and finally 'grown up'.

So because of this Rob, i hope you'll watch the video to the end!

Cheers


I watched about 10 seconds and couldn't tolerate Ace any longer.. .sorry.

With that said, I am not defending the Purdue video. However, based on the calculations I made, the Purdue video does seem plausible considering the amount of energy, especially if the aircraft were modified carrying a higher mass.

I can create the same simulation in my 3D software with it's dynamic collisions generator, which follows all the laws of physics. Although it would take me a really long time. I can assign mass to all objects and structures as well. I am confident that a 767 could cause the damage observed, especially if modified for such an operation. It would have to be modified to achieve the speeds reported as a standard 767 cannot achieve such speeds, as has been demonstrated http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed_part2.html.

Posted by: mrmitosis Apr 4 2012, 01:20 AM

Thanks for the link Mr Tambo Man.

I have to rush out right now, but I'll have a peruse through tomorrow.

I had a quick look at the video you embedded above - although I'm still not convinced, it does make for interesting viewing.

I had never heard of this Ace Baker character until just now. He's fantastic! Stoners for 9/11 Truth - I love it!

Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 4 2012, 02:24 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Apr 2 2012, 04:01 AM) *
I watched about 10 seconds and couldn't tolerate Ace any longer.. .sorry.

With that said, I am not defending the Purdue video. However, based on the calculations I made, the Purdue video does seem plausible considering the amount of energy, especially if the aircraft were modified carrying a higher mass.

I can create the same simulation in my 3D software with it's dynamic collisions generator, which follows all the laws of physics. Although it would take me a really long time. I can assign mass to all objects and structures as well. I am confident that a 767 could cause the damage observed, especially if modified for such an operation. It would have to be modified to achieve the speeds reported as a standard 767 cannot achieve such speeds, as has been demonstrated http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed_part2.html.


Hi Rob,

you can just place the arrow on the round dot and drag the video forward almost frame by frame,
while a thumbnail picture keeps changing, showing where you're at within the video.
This way you can avoid all the frames wherein Ace Baker appears in person!!

I have absolutely no doubt, and never had, that a "modified plane" can achieve the speeds you're
talking about. I don't think that anybody else will dispute it either.

It's just that, a person like me, who do not think that a "real plane" impacted the towers, obviously
would not put too much importance upon this same 'speed', as you would; and others who also
believe that a real plane entered the facades.

The silly thing is though, that while you would use this 'speed' to prove the presence of real planes,
i, on the contrary, would use the same 'speed' to try to prove the 'impossibility' of any real planes
being used, and which i've been trying to do already, previously.

As none of us can persuade the other, all we can do is, in a friendly way, to present each our case
and let others make up their own minds and their own judgements as they see fit.

I'm totally on line with the fact, that this debate is hold completely apart from and outside of
'Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum policy statements' - of which i respect, and will never violate.

Cheers

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 4 2012, 08:46 AM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Apr 4 2012, 04:49 AM) *
And then you show me a standard window around 61/2 feet in height, OSS!!

I don't understand??

Cheers


TM,

I'm sure there were windows where only the top half could be opened for safety reasons, no?

I was going to look for more images but I'm tired of being an errand boy.

Third time asking mate, what do you make of the impact photo I posted?

And why would they bother to "fake" people jumping from the towers??

Posted by: amazed! Apr 4 2012, 09:23 AM

Point very well made TM!

Yes, just as the wing was 'shredded' by wooden light poles, I say the entire airframe was 'shredded' by the large stainless steel shredder that was the exoskeleton of the towers.

Great find!

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 4 2012, 09:30 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Apr 4 2012, 02:23 PM) *
Point very well made TM!

Yes, just as the wing was 'shredded' by wooden light poles, I say the entire airframe was 'shredded' by the large stainless steel shredder that was the exoskeleton of the towers.

Great find!


biggrin.gif

Posted by: rob balsamo Apr 4 2012, 10:50 AM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Apr 4 2012, 02:24 AM) *
The silly thing is though, that while you would use this 'speed' to prove the presence of real planes,


We aren't using the speeds as "proof" of anything. We are saying that the speeds reported do not support the govt story.

The govt story does not add up.

Unlike Shanksville and the Pentagon, there is ample amount of evidence which shows real planes caused the impact damage at the WTC. There is no evidence to prove that the aircraft observed to cause the damage were N334AA and N612UA. In fact, the evidence provided by govt sources contradict their own claims.

This is one of the many reasons why P4T is calling for a new independent investigation.

Again, people are free to explore any theory they want. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

This is why we as an organization do not offer theory. How could we when we don't have subpoena power to examine all the evidence, such as aircraft parts recovered, calling witnesses under oath.. etc.

This is why our Mission Statement has not changed since 2006.

As I have stated before, we have many varying opinions within our organization. John Lear for instance believes holograms were used and is one of our Core members in good standing. However, this cannot be proven until someone shows us the Hologram machine used, operates it, and even then, they would have to prove it was used on 9/11.

This is what a Jury will require. This is what society will require. This is why NPT has not gained any support in 6 years and has done nothing but divide the "movement" while providing ammo for those who want to paint anyone who questions the govt story on 9/11 as lunatics.


John remains a Core member as he is united with us under our Mission Statement and is more than qualified to discuss our work. However, he does not use our work to further his theories. As explained in this short interview.







QUOTE
i, on the contrary, would use the same 'speed' to try to prove the 'impossibility' of any real planes
being used, and which i've been trying to do already, previously.


If you feel evidence is fake, you cannot use it as evidence to prove your case. This is a classic logical fallacy. These are just some of the reasons evidence is tossed from a Court Of Law every day.

Imagine a Prosecutor attempting to prove his case using evidence which he felt was faked.

"Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury, yes that man was shot. Here is the gun, it is made of wax"

It's absurd.

Furthermore, if the WTC impacts were faked, why weren't videos fabricated for the Pentagon and Shanksville?


I am not sure what the ultimate goal of the NPTer's is, but the more I research it, and through discussion over the years, the more I feel it is a concerted disinformation campaign used as a red herring to bury good evidence, evidence which can and will be used in an a new investigation, if one were to be taken seriously.

Perhaps this is the goal of NPTer's? As others have stated in the past... perhaps the motivation for NPT is to make such ludicrous claims that any attempt to get the ball rolling on a new investigation will be stopped before it even gets started.

QUOTE
As none of us can persuade the other, all we can do is, in a friendly way, to present each our case
and let others make up their own minds and their own judgements as they see fit.


I agree, start with providing us the Hologram Machine, then reproducing the effects observed on 9/11, then prove it was used on 9/11.

Again, this is what a Jury will require.

Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 4 2012, 11:24 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Apr 2 2012, 11:46 AM) *
TM,
I'm sure there were windows where only the top half could be opened for safety reasons, no?


This might be the case (i don't know), but that's not what we see in the video.
Here we see people leaning out over the spandrel plates that covers the ledge
and the box behind. We see further that the spandrel plates to the floors above
are positioned very close the heads of the 'leaning out' people.

QUOTE
Third time asking mate, what do you make of the impact photo I posted?


I've already answered you in my posts 258 and 260!!

QUOTE
And why would they bother to "fake" people jumping from the towers??


All i can say really, is that i personally got the answers to that question by
reading about the 'Gelatin B team', and related topics.

Cheers

Posted by: elreb Apr 4 2012, 02:01 PM

More on the WTC Gelatin project, in the form of a sales blurb for the book:

The only legitimate proof of [the] activity is a piece of chewing gum placed by the group, stuck to the exterior of the building at a perilous height. (Art Monthly)

The Austrian collective, Gelatin, has gained an international reputation for ambitious projects that thrive on surprise and hyper-real bodily sensation. Each project pushes physical boundaries and audience expectations.

The B-Thing uncovers the truth behind the rumours of Gelatin's construction of an improvised balcony on the 91st floor of the World Trade Centre in New York in 2000. Through preparatory notes written by the boys, diagrams and colour photographs, we are finally able to glimpse the pink sunrise over New York from Gelatin's eyes and to see how their home-made balcony emerged like a 'pimple on the building's eelslippery face.'

The rumours continued however and Moukhtar Kocache, Director of Visual Art and Media at the WTC, felt the need to deny that the action ever took place, claiming that any documentation 'simply demonstrates [Gelatin's] art of deception.' Although he praised their success 'in addressing the mythological and iconic dimensions of America, New York and the Twin Towers,' and continued, '[they] use the system of the art world, a system they love to critique as a vehicle ... And because they are boys and like to play ...'

Suddenly, on 11 September 2001, this playful project became an historic document.

The Gelitin (note the spelling difference) website: www.gelitin.net

The Gelitin B-Thing page: http://www.gelitin.net/mambo/index.php?set...a6ce3b4f7a916c6

Curioser and curioser.

Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 5 2012, 01:42 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Apr 2 2012, 01:50 PM) *
We aren't using the speeds as "proof" of anything. We are saying that the speeds reported do not support the govt story.

The govt story does not add up.

Unlike Shanksville and the Pentagon, there is ample amount of evidence which shows real planes caused the impact damage at the WTC. There is no evidence to prove that the aircraft observed to cause the damage were N334AA and N612UA. In fact, the evidence provided by govt sources contradict their own claims.

This is one of the many reasons why P4T is calling for a new independent investigation.

Again, people are free to explore any theory they want. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

This is why we as an organization do not offer theory. How could we when we don't have subpoena power to examine all the evidence, such as aircraft parts recovered, calling witnesses under oath.. etc.

This is why our Mission Statement has not changed since 2006.

As I have stated before, we have many varying opinions within our organization. John Lear for instance believes holograms were used and is one of our Core members in good standing. However, this cannot be proven until someone shows us the Hologram machine used, operates it, and even then, they would have to prove it was used on 9/11.

This is what a Jury will require. This is what society will require. This is why NPT has not gained any support in 6 years and has done nothing but divide the "movement" while providing ammo for those who want to paint anyone who questions the govt story on 9/11 as lunatics.

John remains a Core member as he is united with us under our Mission Statement and is more than qualified to discuss our work. However, he does not use our work to further his theories. As explained in this short interview.


If you feel evidence is fake, you cannot use it as evidence to prove your case. This is a classic logical fallacy. These are just some of the reasons evidence is tossed from a Court Of Law every day.

Imagine a Prosecutor attempting to prove his case using evidence which he felt was faked.

"Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury, yes that man was shot. Here is the gun, it is made of wax"

It's absurd.

Furthermore, if the WTC impacts were faked, why weren't videos fabricated for the Pentagon and Shanksville?

I am not sure what the ultimate goal of the NPTer's is, but the more I research it, and through discussion over the years, the more I feel it is a concerted disinformation campaign used as a red herring to bury good evidence, evidence which can and will be used in an a new investigation, if one were to be taken seriously.

Perhaps this is the goal of NPTer's? As others have stated in the past... perhaps the motivation for NPT is to make such ludicrous claims that any attempt to get the ball rolling on a new investigation will be stopped before it even gets started.

I agree, start with providing us the Hologram Machine, then reproducing the effects observed on 9/11, then prove it was used on 9/11.

Again, this is what a Jury will require.


Hi Rob,

obviously i totally agree with you in the main, and that's why i have been careful to put emphasis on the fact
that it's only my opinions i'm voicing.

There's one thing though i would like to make a comment on. You write: ".....and has done nothing but divide
the "movement" .....".
Don't really think that this so-called 'truth movement' exist any longer (if it ever did!), but has now become
more like an anachronism, or is virtually known by 'name' only, and not by any form of true 'substance'.

I rather see the whole thing as a huge "murder case", much like what we see in the movies. The top brass,
represented by the police chief, the commissioner, the DA, the prosecutor and governments, got their 'man',
safely behind lock and key.
Hammer, Spade, Poirot, Columbo, Ms. Marple, Holmes and the rest of them, smells a rat and embark on their
own individual investigations.

I think that's what we "in reality" are seeing here as well!
Various clues and various leads are pursued by single people or by groups of people worldwide. Walls everywhere
are (metaphorically speaking) plastered with photos, names, diagrams, calculations, time-frames and what not.
Some clues and leads followed come to dead ends. In other cases, new clues and leads are added to the existing
and the pursuit continues in same or in new directions that has been opening up.
There's no communications between the various investigative 'groups' or 'factions', so all follow their own paths,
and think that only their path is the right one and which eventually will lead to 'solving' the crime.

While this is taken place, the perps and their agents are of course doing everything they can to mislead and to
muddy the waters, sending many of the more gullible on wild "goose-chases", etc. etc.!

One could go into much more details, and write page after page, but hope that this little very simple 'overview'
of where my thinking is going, will perhaps spark more people to seriously consider the advantages it would be
to start communications with other branches partaking in this same investigation.
(Needless to say, that one would only be interested in becoming familiar with the best of the best of 'evidence'
and information the individuals or groups have come up with)!

Cannot see it any other way, if we should have any Hope of ever see this crime solved .......

Cheers

Posted by: elreb Apr 5 2012, 01:12 PM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Apr 4 2012, 07:42 PM) *
While this is taken place, the perps and their agents are of course doing everything they can to mislead and to
muddy the waters, sending many of the more gullible on wild "goose-chases", etc. etc.!

History in general, is a “House of Mirrors”.

Everything is distorted to give the participants unusual and confusing reflections of themselves, some humorous and others frightening.

It is as if we were living on a “Hollywood” backlot and everything is a simulated reality…even the sounds and smells.

The matter/anti-matter injectors have jammed and we must remain in the holodeck and eat fake Broccoli!

Posted by: rob balsamo Apr 6 2012, 07:00 PM

I have been informed that Dennis Cimino is now attacking our organization.

For the historical record, Dennis has felt that this thread was created to attack him, and asked to be removed from being affiliated with Pilots For 9/11 Truth. I respected his request and removed him from our roster.

I respect Dennis as an Electrical Engineer and FDR Expert, but his aeronautical knowledge is severely lacking.

Clearly he has not read through the thread, nor his own emails.

It appears Dennis has now gone full blown No Planer. He is firmly now in the "No Planer" Camp, despite his http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804487.

Again, if anyone would like copies of the emails sent by Dennis, please email me and I will be happy to forward them to you.

The only reason I do not post his full emails here, is because Dennis can be rather "colorful" in his emails, and his emails are rather lengthy. (read: mostly gibberish rants littered with profanity)

Dennis has claimed he is willing to take legal action upon me for "slander", yet he has been "slandered" at JREF and ATS (among other forums) over the past few years and has not so much as even confronted those in which dispute his claims. Dennis cannot even post comments to his own articles. Fetzer is his new messenger boy.

For those who read any messages from Dennis Cimino over the past few weeks or so (via Fetzer as a messenger boy)... please spend the time reading through this thread, keeping in mind the white text on the top of the every page of this forum. Apparently Dennis feels that every poster on this forum is a Core member and affiliated with P4T....

But again, feel free to email me for full, unedited emails, from Dennis.

As to you Dennis...... those who sit sideways as an SO require an FE Certificate. (Dennis now claims he flew the FE panel for Eastern Airlines... funny he never mentioned that to me.. nor does he have an FE certificate in the FAA Airman database)

Again, I respect Dennis as an EE and FDR Expert as I have cross checked his work with others, but he isn't much of a pilot.

Come sue me Dennis. smile.gif

Posted by: mrmitosis Apr 7 2012, 02:51 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Apr 6 2012, 06:00 PM) *
...Dennis has felt that this thread was created to attack him...


Most unfortunate.

For Christ’s sake, does the title of this thread not speak for itself?

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

I can’t think of a title which more clearly expresses the impetus driving this topic. Comments - taken from somewhere else and written by somebody else - reposted on this forum with the intention of discussing them through the prism of 9/11 Truth. I’m not a debunker and I’m not the author of those comments. Did Fetzer and Dennis mistake me for The Jimmy out of Seinfeld, with that persistent and confusing habit of referring to himself in the third person?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJdd4928qJ0

Or am I speaking in some obscure and cryptic version of the English dialect?

I assumed – wrongly, it seems - that Dennis would appreciate total strangers putting their own time and energy into deflecting public criticism of his article. At least I know not to waste any more effort on it.

Posted by: amazed! Apr 7 2012, 03:27 PM

Most unfortunate indeed!

I thought Dennis' analysis to be outstanding!

Ego and personality are always such a problem amongst humans.

Posted by: woody Apr 7 2012, 03:33 PM


I can't say I'm surprised.

This is why I called Dennis "erratic" in this thread - at that time I referred to his announcement of retiring in January and the subsequent sudden publishing of two large and factually excellent articles, the Fetzer article and another one on Sergio's website 911acars.blogspot.com (which is highly recommended).

I don't see any rationality in this behavior, yet I know Dennis is a very rational and intelligent person.

Strange.




Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 8 2012, 03:49 AM

QUOTE (woody @ Apr 5 2012, 06:33 PM) *
I can't say I'm surprised.

This is why I called Dennis "erratic" in this thread - at that time I referred to his announcement of retiring in January and the subsequent sudden publishing of two large and factually excellent articles, the Fetzer article and another one on Sergio's website 911acars.blogspot.com (which is highly recommended).

I don't see any rationality in this behavior, yet I know Dennis is a very rational and intelligent person.

Strange.



There's nothing "strange" about any of this.

If one feels in disagreement with anything another person says, one quote the passage in question
totally and completely within the context it was written. Then, if deserving, one gives the opposing
view with the logic, reason, rationality and other 'paraphernalia' one think the topic 'deserves' to be
clarified by or with.

If one feels in agreement with something another person has expressed, and one feels a compulsion
to support the logic and reasons given, one again quotes either a passage in question or accept the
whole and give credence where credence is due.

Life is so uncomplicated and simple that way.

Ego's, personality clashes, discords, disunity, disdain and the like, should have no place and no room
to manœuvre in a "Truth forum" like this, as "Truth" exclusively got its source from 'Goodness' and
the 'Light', in all its various absolutely sensible and highly intelligent manifestations.

If we should all just keep this in mind at all times, then no "evil" in any form would ever be able to
exert any influence at all on and in this Forum, as we so easily would be able to detect its ominous
vapours immediately.

And no. This has nothing to do with "idealism".

This is all simply so just bloody fucking 'common sense', that for all Truly True "Truthseekers" should
in reality be so easy to understand and utterly appreciated and applauded!

Who in his Right mind would ever forever 'love' to live in disharmony and confusion??

We all change our minds as we grow up and mature. Some for the worse and some for the better.
I'm lucky. I can still feel shame for some of the things i thought of as a 25 year old!

Render to Caesar what is Ceasar's, and .......

Cheers

Posted by: amazed! Apr 8 2012, 09:53 AM

Good post TM!

Posted by: rob balsamo Apr 8 2012, 04:20 PM

I agree TM.

I can't count how many times that Dennis asked me to remove him from the P4T roster because his ego was hurt from one or two posts on this forum, neither of which were affiliated with P4T.

I explained to Dennis many times to read the white text at the top of the forum, but apparently he flip-flops worse than a wet fish on hot pavement.

Again, I respect him as an EE and FDR Expert, but it appears he is at that point in his life in which he hears only what he wants to hear, feels that everyone on this forum are "friends" and therefore no one should question his work, and wants others to be his messenger boy. He doesn't understand that anyone can register to this forum, and as long as they follow forum rules, they are welcome to post.

In short, this thread was not created by mrmitosis to attack Dennis, rather defend him. Sure there are a few here who question Dennis, and of course Fetzer came in strong attempting to affiliate Dennis and P4T with NPT.... but such claims are not affiliated with P4T in any way which is what I wanted to make clear and have made clear to Fetzer over the past several years. Anyone who reads through this thread will understand that.

This is the reality of the situation.

Fetzer has been on a campaign over the past few weeks/months to promote his upcoming Conference in Vancouver. He has been literally begging people to come and speak for him. Many respected Core Members of P4T have turned him down, including myself, along with members of other organizations, Fetzer then followed up with several articles on VT, sourcing our work to support his No Plane Theories.

Each time i saw his articles posted (Facebook... emails.. etc), I made a point to write a reply that P4T as an organization do not endorse NPT.

This clearly frustrated Fetzer even worse.

And here you have this thread and the reason Fetzer came, insulted anyone who disagreed with him, and I had no choice but to show him the door.

The NPT factions imploded more than 2 years ago. Fetzer seems to be attempting to revive it. I am glad he came here as now everyone will know where P4T as an organization stands on the NPT theory.

It's just a shame that Dennis' credibility will now be dragged through the mud of the NPT black hole, mainly due to his ego and inability to understand the nature of this thread and the white text on the top of every page of this forum.

Posted by: bpete1969 Apr 9 2012, 05:55 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Apr 6 2012, 07:00 PM) *
I have been informed that Dennis Cimino is now attacking our organization.

For the historical record, Dennis has felt that this thread was created to attack him, and asked to be removed from being affiliated with Pilots For 9/11 Truth. I respected his request and removed him from our roster.

I respect Dennis as an Electrical Engineer and FDR Expert, but his aeronautical knowledge is severely lacking.

Clearly he has not read through the thread, nor his own emails.

It appears Dennis has now gone full blown No Planer. He is firmly now in the "No Planer" Camp, despite his http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804487.

Again, if anyone would like copies of the emails sent by Dennis, please email me and I will be happy to forward them to you.

The only reason I do not post his full emails here, is because Dennis can be rather "colorful" in his emails, and his emails are rather lengthy. (read: mostly gibberish rants littered with profanity)

Dennis has claimed he is willing to take legal action upon me for "slander", yet he has been "slandered" at the govt loyalist site and ATS (among other forums) over the past few years and has not so much as even confronted those in which dispute his claims. Dennis cannot even post comments to his own articles. Fetzer is his new messenger boy.

For those who read any messages from Dennis Cimino over the past few weeks or so (via Fetzer as a messenger boy)... please spend the time reading through this thread, keeping in mind the white text on the top of the every page of this forum. Apparently Dennis feels that every poster on this forum is a Core member and affiliated with P4T....

But again, feel free to email me for full, unedited emails, from Dennis.

As to you Dennis...... those who sit sideways as an SO require an FE Certificate. (Dennis now claims he flew the FE panel for Eastern Airlines... funny he never mentioned that to me.. nor does he have an FE certificate in the FAA Airman database)

Again, I respect Dennis as an EE and FDR Expert as I have cross checked his work with others, but he isn't much of a pilot.

Come sue me Dennis. smile.gif


I would like to say hello to the group. I am new here and came out of curiosity because of the constant references Jim Fetzer uses on your work.
I have had several exchanges with Uncle Fetzer at Veterans Today so I empathize with the frustration caused by his visits here.
The main reason I came was in hopes of confronting Fetzer and Dennis because of their attacking another person that left a comment on their latest story. Dennis accused that person of being me, hiding behind a different user name. I lost my posting privileges there back in March due to confronting the GM, John Allen after he not only edited some of my posts but completely rewrote them without stating that the words were his and not mine. I ran a story on my blog about it. A blog that came about because of the "fetzering" on the VT site and the Education Forum.
Uncle Fetzer has been riding the coattails of many in the movement, by mingling his words and theories with those of others and then utilizes his unique requirements to face down a challenge.
If you'll notice, Fetzer not only demands that you repeat his claim but also demands that you state why he makes the claim, something that is impossible to do with a narcissistic sociopath. He has used his "special technique" here, at VT, The Education Forum and his own various sites.
I cover some of his antics at my blog and welcome anyone here to visit. Just google Fetzering Against Rational Thought....ironic his last post at VT was titled "Reason and Rationality...something Fetzer sorely lacks.

later.....


Posted by: mrmitosis Apr 9 2012, 05:07 PM

QUOTE (bpete1969 @ Apr 9 2012, 04:55 AM) *
...If you'll notice, Fetzer not only demands that you repeat his claim but also demands that you state why he makes the claim...


I DID notice that! At first I dismissed it as a typo, because it makes no sense to impose that type of requirement in a debate. Who the fuck knows, cares, or is even capable of accounting for the conclusions that someone else comes to? Isn't it up to HIM to explain the steps in his own reasoning? Bizarre.

Posted by: bpete1969 Apr 9 2012, 09:41 PM

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Apr 9 2012, 05:07 PM) *
I DID notice that! At first I dismissed it as a typo, because it makes no sense to impose that type of requirement in a debate. Who the fuck knows, cares, or is even capable of accounting for the conclusions that someone else comes to? Isn't it up to HIM to explain the steps in his own reasoning? Bizarre.


If you knew Fetzer you wouldn't think it bizarre. It's his M.O. Look back at how many times he referred to his 35 years of teaching "critical thinking", blah blah blah. Fetzer operates under the premise of there is no one out their capable of refuting him simply because of who he is. He considers himself to be the ultimate authority on what is or isn't legitimate thought or reasoning. His entire career can be seen in this thread. He makes a statement and if you don't agree with his position he then he tells you that you haven't given enough thought or time to his position. Then if you still disagree he will use an apples and pliers comparison (I say apples and pliers because he leaps completely out of the realm of fruit as in apples and oranges). Then if you still disagree with him he questions your mental capacity, or your motive or both in the same breath. He has done it with others in the movement ie: Steven Jones, Wood, Ryan, Gage, Rob (above) and eventually it will happen with Dennis Cimino ( whoever he is). Fetzer gets where he is by the hard work of others and when that work comes into serious question he'll quickly disassociate himself and trash them as being an op or " dishonest broker".
I would suggest googling Fetzer-Josiah Thompson and you'll see that Fetzer's actions here, started way back before 9-11 in the JFK movement. he's a real piece of work.

Posted by: rob balsamo Apr 9 2012, 11:44 PM

QUOTE (bpete1969 @ Apr 9 2012, 09:41 PM) *
He has done it with others in the movement ie: Steven Jones, Wood, Ryan, Gage, Rob (above) and eventually it will happen with Dennis Cimino ( whoever he is).


Over the years I have seen Fetzer attack many others he once called his allies, more than producing any work of his own to attack the govt story.

If it quacks like a duck....


QUOTE
Fetzer gets where he is by the hard work of others...



And this is my main problem with Fetzer. I can't count how many times I have told him over the years that he is welcome to disseminate our work, but be sure to draw a distinction if you use your own conclusions... it all started when Fetzer wrote a very misleading article using our work, and I then forced him to http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=110&Itemid=67 (see bottom of article), and of course we posted them to our site as well.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/article_corrections.html


Fetzer has known for years that Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not endorse NPT, nor does "impossible speed" validate NPT.

John Lear gets it.... Fetzer and Cimino do not.




And this is why John Lear has been a Core Member in good standing long before Dennis Cimino, and continues to be a Core member to this day. John Lear doesn't use our banner to further his conclusions, unlike Fetzer (and now Cimino). In fact, John has told me many times that if he becomes a liability to our organization due to his theories, to remove him from our Roster. Unlike Fetzer and Cimino, Lear has class. I have gone to bat many times for Lear, Cimino and even Fetzer.... the only one who has truly earned my respect is John Lear, as he respects our position.

It's funny though, Fetzer and Cimino now call me incompetent out of one side of their mouth, while saying my work is excellent out of the other side. You can't make this stuff up..lol

Apparently now Dennis thinks I am calling him a "jew hater".... lol. Well, no.. we're not calling him that, nor have I ever called him that.

For those wondering, when we were working on the ACARS analysis, Dennis kept falling into "Israel did it!" arguments via email. I asked him several times if he could focus on ACARS as that is where we need his help. He continued his Israel rants. I don't have a problem with anyone who feels Israel was involved with 9/11, it is discussed on this forum all the time. However, I do have a problem with people who cannot focus. Dennis got angry, went ballistic, asked to be removed from P4T (for perhaps the second time). I let it slide as I normally did in the past when Dennis comes off the rails, he apologized, we went on our way.

Fast forward to NPT arguments and this thread. Dennis once again came off the rails, asked to be removed from P4T, I had enough... now he's gone.

Dennis reminds me of an old timer sinking into dementia. They are really sharp discussing work in their areas of expertise, if you can get them to focus. If you ask them to focus, they think they are being attacked, become disturbingly belligerent, and come off the rails, only later to apologize. I wish him well, I just no longer have patience to deal with such belligerence.

And again, if anyone would like the full email exchanges of this topic (and now since Dennis brought it up, the past topic of ACARS and discussion of Israel), please email me and I will be happy to forward them to you.

As for Dennis and his empty threats of getting me charged with a Felony for forwarding words he wrote, I live in a one party consent state, I record the FBI and NTSB... and post it online... Dennis, you think someone like you is going to worry me? Save your chest thumping for those who might give a damn...lol

Dennis, when will you confront the FBI or NTSB?

Dennis doesn't want his emails forwarded because then everyone will see exactly how he acts. This is mainly the reason he needs a messenger boy to post for him. He needs someone to clean up his language.

Now Dennis, if you really want to sue someone for libel/slander, why not start with the JREF? They been attacking you for years.

Oh, that's right, you don't even have the nads to make your own posts. You need a messenger boy. Good luck with that.

Welcome to the forum bpete....

Posted by: rob balsamo Apr 16 2012, 09:42 PM

Given the conversation throughout this thread, I find the following latest developments ..... for lack of a better term... enlightening....




If anyone has a link to the specific technology involved exclusively for the above video, please post it.

Posted by: paranoia Apr 16 2012, 11:27 PM

http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/creator-of-tupac-hologram-talks-on-making-it-how-much-it-costs-news.1795.html

QUOTE
The audience at Coachella, and even those viewing from home, were amazed at Tupac taking the stage during Snoop Dogg and Dr. Dre's performance. Now the creator behind it talks on the technology.

The creator of the much-talked about Tupac appearence at Coachella 2012 spoke out about the new hologram technology to MTV News.

Nick Smith is the president of AV Concepts, the company that created the technology. He talks about working with Dr. Dre to bring Tupac back, how much it would cost to make one and more.

Read what he had to say below.

"We worked with Dr. Dre on this and it was Dre’s vision to bring this back to life. It was his idea from the very beginning and we worked with him and his camp to utilize the technology to make it come to life.”

Smith said he wasn’t allowed to talk about the creative aspects of the production including how the hologram was able to seemingly perform the set in synch with Snoop and whether all the vocals were ‘Pac’s — but he did say that his company has the ability to recreate long-dead figures and visually recreate them in the studio. "You can take their likenesses and voice and … take people that haven’t done concerts before or perform music they haven’t sung and digitally recreate it," he said.

The hologram was the latest visual magic pulled off by AV, which is also behind the 2005 Grammys performance featuring Madonna and the holographic members of the Gorillaz, as well as holograms used in concert by Celine Dion and the Black Eyed Peas.

The Tupac hologram was several months in the planning and took nearly four months to create in a studio and though Smith was not able to reveal the exact price tag for the illusion, he said a comparable one could cost anywhere from $100,000 to more than $400,000 to pull off. "I can’t say how much that event cost, but I can say it’s affordable in the sense that if we had to bring entertainers around world and create concerts across the country, we could put [artists] in every venue in the country" he said.



about the technology, though not specifically about the tupac projection:
http://www.projectionfreak.com/av-concepts-breaks-holographic-projection-record

QUOTE
LAS VEGAS (May 12, 2011) AV Concepts is helping high profile Corporate VIP's get an eyeful by installing the largest 3D holographic projection in history. On a surface spanning nearly 2,000 square feet, guests were taken into the 3D holographic experience, while VIP's interacted with 3D holographic presentations in a live event. No 3D glasses were necessary.

In preparation for this record breaking installation, AV Concepts constructed a test rig inside the San Diego Convention Center. Joe Russo, Director of Technology, explained,” The unique nature of this particular rig structure required several engineering revisions to support the incredible 100 foot wide stage. Working with truss and rigging design engineers, the proper system was developed to accommodate the massive frame needed to support the holographic screen. AV Concepts was selected by one of the World’s largest and most prestigious production companies as both a technical and creative partner for this highly complex event. To create one of the most exciting pre-scripted moments, AV Concepts produced an on-site high-definition video shoot with VIP executives who were filmed and converted into holograms for a live, on-stage interaction with the CEO during his presentation.

President of AV Concepts, Nick Smith stated, “This record breaking installation, speaks volumes to what AV Concepts delivers every day, and that’s to be the leader in implementing the most innovative technology, while also providing our clients with the best quality of service. Our ability to provide cutting edge technology and solutions help our clients better connect with their respective audience, creating memorable experiences. ”

For a flawless visual presentation, AV Concept’s used 14 Christie HD18 projectors, controlled by 4 Christie Vista Spyder systems. Additionally, AV Concepts new 4-camera high definition camera package was used with two additional robotic cameras for specialty pick up shots.

One of the world’s most advanced technology demonstration theaters is located within AV Concepts’ San Diego Office to support Musion 3D holographic consultation, development, and live demonstrations, in addition to virtual 3D Scenery and projection mapping applications. I can’t wait to see more great stuff coming from this company!

I wondered about what it was they used to accomplish the 3d part and here you have it:

Musion Eyeliner is a unique high-definition video holographic projection system allowing spectacular freeform 3D hologram effects to be projected within a live stage setting using Peppers Ghost illusion. Eyeliner produces high resolution images that make them unmistakably real, which is what happened when Gorillaz & Madonna performed the opening number at the European MTV Awards. Musion Eyeliner is a specially developed foil that reflects images from a high-definition video projector, making it possible to show virtual images of variable sizes and distinct clarity.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musion_Eyeliner
QUOTE
The system works as a modern commercial variation of a stage illusion called Pepper's ghost. Thin metalized film is placed across the front of the stage at angle of 45 degrees towards the audience; recessed below the screen is a bright image supplied by an LED screen or powerful projector. When viewed from the audience's perspective, the reflected images appear to be on the stage. The system was created by Uwe Maass.[1]

Because the system uses a thin film as its reflective surface, the screen is relatively low-cost and light-weight, and can cover a large area without seams (thus helping maintain the illusion); however, this lightness can make the screen vibrate due to atmospheric effects such as wind, when outdoors; or powerful sound systems, when indoors.

The system's effect is described as to "create the illusion of life-size, full colour, 3D moving images".[1] It consists of a flat (two-dimensional) image that produces the illusion of being three-dimensional and suspended in free space.[1] It does not, for instance, recreate stereoscopy as most 3D displays do, nor is it a true hologram.



AV Concepts & Musion Eyeliner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkarjAr4hsM

for more, check their website:
http://www.avconcepts.com/services/


see also:
http://www.eyeliner3d.com/
http://www.musion.co.uk/about_musion_eyeliner.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper%27s_ghost


also, the equipment used for the projection:
http://www.christiedigital.com/en-us/business/products/projectors/pages/default.aspx
http://www.christiedigital.com/en-us/business/visual-solutions-case-studies/christie-videos/pages/default.aspx


Posted by: rob balsamo Apr 16 2012, 11:41 PM

Thank you p....

So... from my preliminary skimming of the above, it takes an actual screen (or multiple screens) to create such effects.

In other words, if holograms were employed on 9/11 in Broad Daylight, people would see some type of screens stretched down the Hudson to altitudes which exceed 2000 feet.

I suppose it is possible, but imagine the material that would have to be used to fool the largest populated city in the world.

What is even more hysterical, are those who claim the videos are fake, yet use the videos as authentic for impact analysis.

Yeah.. .the more I look into this NPT crap, the more I realize it may be a product of Cass Sunstein's minions.

Posted by: mrmitosis Apr 17 2012, 12:05 AM

QUOTE (paranoia @ Apr 16 2012, 10:27 PM) *
"The audience at Coachella, and even those viewing from home, were amazed at Tupac taking the stage during Snoop Dogg and Dr. Dre's performance."


Personally, I still don't subscribe to NTT (No Tupac Theory).

Posted by: woody Apr 17 2012, 11:55 AM

Dennis Cimino now has accused me of libelling him, slandering him, committing character assassination, calling him "instable" and insinuating "mental incapacity", blackmailing etc. etc.

To set the record straight, here are my posts in this thread concerning Dennis Cimino:

QUOTE
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.


QUOTE
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 I don't like to cite from private emails.

Frankly, I'm deeply disappointed 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.


QUOTE
I can't say I'm surprised.

This is why I called Dennis "erratic" in this thread - at that time I referred to his announcement of retiring in January and the subsequent sudden publishing of two large and factually excellent articles, the Fetzer article and another one on Sergio's website 911acars.blogspot.com (which is highly recommended).

I don't see any rationality in this behavior, yet I know Dennis is a very rational and intelligent person.

Strange.


Libelling? Slandering? I think you can see that I try to be nice with him and stressed the positive aspects of his pronouncements, albeit being pretty critical. But where did I insinuate "mental incapacity"?

The most critical word is "erratic". "Character assassination"? In fact, to behave "erratic", in the sense of unpredictable, can be important in certain situations, as for chess players or poker players. And honestly, sometimes Dennis Cimino seems to play games here. However, for an expert or researcher fighting against the official story, I don't view an erratic behavior as helpful.

Dennis Cimino should do the Truth movement a big favor and do what he told to Kevin Barrett: retire from activism.








Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 17 2012, 12:02 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Apr 15 2012, 02:41 AM) *
So... from my preliminary skimming of the above, it takes an actual screen (or multiple screens) to create such effects.

In other words, if holograms were employed on 9/11 in Broad Daylight, people would see some type of screens stretched down the Hudson to altitudes which exceed 2000 feet.

I suppose it is possible, but imagine the material that would have to be used to fool the largest populated city in the world.



Hi Rob,

just to be clear about this from my personal viewpoint. I don't think that any sane person would ever entertain the idea

that 'screens' were used in relation to 'projected' planes at WTC on 9/11.

I rather suspect that more sophisticated technology would have been utilized then; sort of more in line with what DARPA

was playing around with in those days - and of course, before that time as well:


".....
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).

....."

QUOTE
What is even more hysterical, are those who claim the videos are fake, yet use the videos as authentic for impact analysis.

Yeah.. .the more I look into this NPT crap, the more I realize it may be a product of Cass Sunstein's minions.



Truly hope you're leaving me completely out of those two "alarming possibilities" .......please!! ohmy.gif

Cheers

Posted by: rob balsamo Apr 17 2012, 05:49 PM

QUOTE (woody @ Apr 17 2012, 11:55 AM) *
Dennis Cimino now has accused me of libelling him, slandering him, committing character assassination, calling him "instable" and insinuating "mental incapacity", blackmailing etc. etc.


Yeah, i don't think Dennis understands the meaning of any of those words.

He claims I am doing the same, somehow I am blackmailing him by saying I will forward his emails to anyone who wants them, to set the record straight.

Psst, Dennis, when someone attempts blackmail, they usually want something from the person being blackmailed. Such as "Give me 50,000 dollars or I will release tapes of you cheating on your wife".

Dennis, I want nothing from you, no one is attacking you, no one is libeling you, no one is slandering you and certainly no one is trying to blackmail you. This thread was created to defend you. You sir came off the rails and started to libel and attack our organization and me personally, after I went round and round with Fetzer, showing him the physics and logic of his argument, only for him to constantly insult our forum members and me. It's all right here in this thread. I think your long diatribes and rants posted by your messenger boy Fetzer since are pathetic.

Dennis, here's a bit of insight into the meaning of libel, if you make a claim, you may want to back it up with a source. Most of the claims you make regarding our emails exchanges are completely false. Your claims such as me calling you a "jew hater" are knowingly false as you read and replied to the emails yourself. This makes your claims libel. All I am willing to do is provide those emails to anyone who wants them so they can have all the information and decide for themselves. You obviously don't want people to have all the information and instead make up your own..... and somehow think it is blackmail if I provide the source you fail to provide. That's hilarious!

Dennis, why don't you share the original emails yourself, instead of making inaccurate claims of the contents?

You won't share them, as then you won't be able to make such false claims. It's just that simple.

Dennis, did you ever tell Fetzer why you http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804201 about a post I made for you? Why do you need a messenger boy to make your posts? You can't figure out the simple steps to make a post, but you want people to believe you flew the FE Panel on a 727? Really?

With that said, you will be happy to know that no one has asked for the emails as of yet... they already know your word isn't worth much at this point. But if asked, I will share. You're the one who brought up the contents... if you don't want people to have all the information, don't bring it up... and certainly don't lie about it... it's just that simple.

Dennis, when are you going to confront the FBI and NTSB?

Good luck in Vancouver, if you ever make it there.

You may also want to remove the "Second Officer" claim in your qualifications as it only takes 2 mins to look up your Certificates in the https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/ which shows that you do not hold a Flight Engineer Certificate for the "Second Officer" position. Maybe you were a Flight Attendant and you think this is the "Second Officer" position on a 727? If so, you would be wrong.

Stop lying Dennis. Life is so much easier when you are honest with yourself and others.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)