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

[rob balsamo]

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.

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.

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.

[amazed!]

Sounds good to me Rob.

So that made him about 150 over Vmo, right?

[rob balsamo]

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....

[amazed!]

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

[rob balsamo]

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.

[onesliceshort]

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.

(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcsouthtowerzoomhole.jpg)

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.

[Tamborine man]

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!

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!

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!

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

[rob balsamo]

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.

[Tamborine man]

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

[rob balsamo]

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And we don't delete posts on this forum. You know that TM... This is not ATS... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

[Tamborine man]

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And we don't delete posts on this forum. You know that TM... This is not ATS... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/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?? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Cheers

[elreb]

Happy to hear you were not pissed off ....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804449

[mrmitosis]

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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wub.gif)

PS, don't forget to wind back your clock overnight! An extra hour's sleep before the 10am Sunday shift. Woot! Woot!

[elreb]

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!

(IMG:http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lm6vp4uTM81qi4ucgo1_400.jpg)

[onesliceshort]

I suppose I should point out where I have previously said before I post....

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.

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

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.

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?

[elreb]

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?

[Tamborine man]

mrmitosis and elreb, thank you for your "Kindness" ....in both definitions of the word! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

OSS,
will come back to your very interesting post later.

Have just been 'heartlessly' interrupted by "she who Must be obeyed"!

Cheers

[onesliceshort]

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?

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

PPS "Bob" is a government loyalist that haunts this forum but hasn't the balls to post here.

[amazed!]

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. ?

[rob balsamo]

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?