IPBFacebook



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


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

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

16 Pages V  « < 10 11 12 13 14 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Debunkers Respond To Dennis Cimino, A Few Comments Copy & Pasted

rob balsamo
post Mar 29 2012, 11:35 AM
Post #221



Group Icon

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



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 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 calculated the trajectory 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Mar 29 2012, 02:49 PM
Post #222





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



Sounds good to me Rob.

So that made him about 150 over Vmo, right?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 29 2012, 02:57 PM
Post #223



Group Icon

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



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 precise control 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 list grows? Just a thought....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Mar 29 2012, 09:32 PM
Post #224





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



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. ;-)

This post has been edited by amazed!: Mar 29 2012, 09:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 29 2012, 10:41 PM
Post #225



Group Icon

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



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Mar 30 2012, 10:01 AM
Post #226



Group Icon

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



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Mar 30 2012, 12:56 PM
Post #227





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



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 post, 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

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Mar 30 2012, 01:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 30 2012, 01:05 PM
Post #228



Group Icon

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



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 this as hard as you can.

Video tape it and post it here.

Then go out and buy your new bat.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Mar 30 2012, 01:34 PM
Post #229





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 28 2012, 04:05 PM) *
Take your lattice bat and hit this 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 30 2012, 01:40 PM
Post #230



Group Icon

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



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Mar 30 2012, 02:38 PM
Post #231





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Mar 30 2012, 03:20 PM
Post #232





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



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Mar 30 2012, 08:38 AM) *
Happy to hear you were not pissed off ....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804449
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Mar 30 2012, 07:30 PM
Post #233





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



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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Mar 30 2012, 09:13 PM
Post #234





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



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!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Mar 30 2012, 10:46 PM
Post #235



Group Icon

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



I suppose I should point out where I have previously said 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.p...;#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/ac98/77...werzoomhole.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?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Mar 30 2012, 11:34 PM
Post #236





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



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Mar 31 2012, 04:22 AM
Post #237





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Mar 31 2012, 08:28 AM
Post #238



Group Icon

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



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Mar 31 2012, 03:05 PM
Post #239





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



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. ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 31 2012, 03:58 PM
Post #240



Group Icon

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



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?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

16 Pages V  « < 10 11 12 13 14 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th October 2019 - 03:49 AM