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

[onesliceshort]

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.

[jfetzer]

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?

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.