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

[mrmitosis]

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

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

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

Thank you.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Mar 19 2012, 03:20 PM

[rob balsamo]

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 -

[rob balsamo]

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

[jfetzer]

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 new web site for The Vancouver Hearings, 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.

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