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

[amazed!]

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.

[Dennis Cimino]

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.

[jfetzer]

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.

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.

This post has been edited by jfetzer: Mar 21 2012, 01:20 AM

[jfetzer]

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.

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.