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]

Thank you for your apology Jim... accepted.

As for the reason we do not endorse NPT as an organization (or any other theory for that matter), it is explained in our mission statement on the top of our home page. It has been there since the organization was founded in Aug 2006.

We have many differing opinions within our organization, but where we stand united is under our mission statement.

And to be clear, when i reference NPT, i reference NPT at the WTC considering the amount of video and witness statements, some of which who i know personally and watched aircraft hit the WTC while sitting on the taxiways at JFK and EWR waiting to depart. One of such witnesses is listed as a core member of P4T.

I am not an expert to examine "Video fakery", however it has been discussed at length in this section of our forum. I am not convinced, nor do I feel the need to spend more of my time researching a topic in which i do not have the expertise.... a topic which is more controversial than the topics I do have expertise.

In short, I'm not going to waste my time when my time is better spent researching topics I understand, can debate, and can be called as an Expert Witness.

[jfetzer]

Well, thanks. But your post displays a misunderstanding of the theory of video fakery, which encompasses any use of video to convey a false or misleading impression of (in this case) what happened on 9/11. That could include altering the videos as they were being broadcast or having used something that looked like a plane but was not a real plane. If you were to read what I have published, you would see that, in the case of the North and the South Tower hits, we appear to be dealing with simulations.

See "Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity" or "9/11: Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'", which makes this entirely clear. I think you have prejudged the issue, just as I did before I began to seriously study it. We have witnesses, such as those whom you cite, who saw something they took to be a plane. But while it LOOKED LIKE A PLANE, it was performing feats that NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM. We have to deal with something that looked like a real plane but was not a real plane. That's the deal.

I think this is a nice example of drawing a premature conclusion and then refusing to consider the evidence. This is why I asked you what you take NPT to come to. Obviously, I was right to suspect that you did not understand what we are up against. I am of course in complete agreement that, given the witness reports, we are dealing with something they reported as "a plane". But the evidence demonstrates--conclusively, in my opinion--that IT CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE BUT WAS A SIMULATION.

Thank you for your apology Jim... accepted.

As for the reason we do not endorse NPT as an organization (or any other theory for that matter), it is explained in our mission statement on the top of our home page. It has been there since the organization was founded in Aug 2006.

We have many differing opinions within our organization, but where we stand united is under our mission statement.

And to be clear, when i reference NPT, i reference NPT at the WTC considering the amount of video and witness statements, some of which who i know personally and watched aircraft hit the WTC while sitting on the taxiways at JFK and EWR. One of such witnesses is a core member of P4T.

I am not an expert to examine "Video fakery", however it has been discussed at length in this section of our forum. I am not convinced, nor do I feel the need to spend more of my time researching a topic in which i do not have the expertise.... a topic which is more controversial than the topics I do have expertise.

In short, I'm not going to waste my time when my time is better spent researching topics I understand, can debate, and can be called as an Expert Witness.

[rob balsamo]

But your post displays a misunderstanding of the theory of video fakery, which encompasses any use of video to convey a false or misleading impression of (in this case) what happened on 9/11. That could include altering the videos as they were being broadcast or having used something that looked like a plane but was not a real plane. If you were to read what I have published, you would see that, in the case of the North and the South Tower hits, we appear to be dealing with simulations.,

As i said Jim, Video Fakery was discussed at length in this section of the forum. If you would search and read those exchanges, and perhaps provide your rebuttals, i may find some time to review it.. .especially if i can find more than 24 hours in a day in which I am researching and debating topics in which I am an expert.


Again, I am not convinced by Video Fakery, but as an amateur Film producer myself, i do know how easy it is to manipulate video, especially with alpha channels and chroma-keying. Of course, this is not done live on multiple stations and multiple private cameras.

[jfetzer]

No, Rob. I am talking about FAKE PLANES, not FAKE VIDEO. Give me a break. I have explained this many times now. What witnesses reported seeing hit the South Tower CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE, BECAUSE IT WAS PERFORMING FEATS THAT NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM. It was traveling at an impossible speed (for a standard 767), but it also entered the building in violation of Newton's laws (which no real plane could do) and passes through its own length into this massive steel-and-concrete building the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air (which is also physically impossible). What we have here is the sophisticated simulation of a plane, not a real plane. I think you need to recalibrate your reasoning about NPT.

As i said Jim, Video Fakery was discussed at length in this section of the forum. If you would search and read those exchanges, and perhaps provide your rebuttals, i may find some time to review it.. .especially if i can find more than 24 hours in a day in which I am researching and debating topics in which I am an expert.

Again, I am not convinced by Video Fakery, but as an amateur Film producer myself, i do know how easy it is to manipulate video, especially with alpha channels and chroma-keying. Of course, this is not done live on multiple stations and multiple private cameras.

This post has been edited by jfetzer: Mar 21 2012, 11:21 AM

[rob balsamo]

No, Rob. I am talking about FAKE PLANES, not FAKE VIDEO. Give me a break. I have explained this many times now. What witnesses reported seeing hit the South Tower CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE, BECAUSE IT WAS PERFORMING FEATS THAT NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM.

No Jim, you were talking about Video Fakery. Go up and read the quote I replied to...

However, I disagree with "CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE, BECAUSE IT WAS PERFORMING FEATS THAT NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM"... and I have explained this to you in answering your questions.


And please calm down Jim. There is no need to shout.

Thanks.

[jfetzer]

Rob,

What you have explained is that you know some of the witnesses who reported seeing "a plane" and that you believe them. What you have not explained is how "a plane" could be a real plane and perform feats that no real plane could perform. That is what I have been pursuing. And you seem obtuse to my definition of "video fakery", which is any use of videos to convey a false impression of the events of 9/11, in this case, including the hits on the North Tower and the South.

I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge that you have misunderstood me and presumed--simply took for granted--that "video fakery" mean altering the videos and did not include faking the planes. I understand that you might have committed a misunderstanding like that, but now that I have explained in--many times, right here on this forum--surely you can broaden your understanding to encompass the argument I am making rather than an interpretation you have imposed upon me.

And it should come as no surprise that someone who's mind is made up--even though it is based upon a gross misunderstanding about the relationship between "the plane", video fakery, and NPT--should discount and disregard studies by someone like me, whom you have apparently taken to be at least mildly demented. Since no real plane could have performed the feats shown in the videos of the South Tower hit, those who fall into that category would appear to be instead those who ignore the evidence.

No Jim, you were talking about Video Fakery. Go up and read the quote I replied to...

However, I disagree with "CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE, BECAUSE IT WAS PERFORMING FEATS THAT NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM"... and I have explained this to you in answering your questions.


And please calm down Jim. There is no need to shout.

Thanks.

[rob balsamo]

Rob,

What you have explained is that you know some of the witnesses who reported seeing "a plane" and that you believe them.

"Believe them"? No... do I find them credible in the fact they can be called into a court of law as not only a witness, but an Expert Witness? Yes.

What you have not explained is how "a plane" could be a real plane and perform feats that no real plane could perform.

The "feats" can be performed by a real aircraft, especially one which is modified. Again, this was already explained to you in my answers to your questions.

The "feats" cannot be performed by a standard 767, N612UA. Again, I explained this to you in my answers to your questions.

[jfetzer]

So it is the position of Rob Balsamo, the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, that a real plane can not only travel faster than a standard Boeing 767 at 700-1,000' foot altitude but that it could have entered a massive, 500,000-ton building in violation of Newton's laws and passed its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes though its own length in air, which of course implies no deceleration (since d = r x t), when in fact it should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, luggage, seats and passengers fallen to the ground, and its velocity dropped to zero, none of which happened? And you, Rob Balsamo, actually believe that?

"Believe them"? No... do I find them credible in the fact they can be called into a court of law as not only a witness, but an Expert Witness? Yes.

The "feats" can be performed by a real aircraft, especially one which is modified. Again, this was already explained to you in my answers to your questions.

The "feats" cannot be performed by a standard 767, N612UA. Again, I explained this to you in my answers to your questions.

This post has been edited by jfetzer: Mar 21 2012, 12:43 PM

[rob balsamo]

So it is the position of Rob Balsamo, the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, that a real plane can not only travel faster than a standard Boeing 767 at 700-1,000' foot altitude

Absolutely. Here's one of them.



This does not mean I think an F-14 hit the south tower, but that looks like a real plane to me. How about you Jim?

but that it could have entered a massive, 500,000-ton building in violation of Newton's laws and passed its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes though its own length in air, which of course implies no deceleration (since d = r x t), when in fact it should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, luggage, seats and passengers fallen to the ground, and its velocity dropped to zero, none of which happened? And you, Rob Balsamo, actually believe that?

Jim, you're a scientist, right?. Do me a favor. Shoot a filled can of Coke at 590 mph at 1/4 inch steel, let me know what happens.

After you get done with that, increase the density of the aluminum surrounding the a filled coke can and try it again with thicker steel.

[jfetzer]

This is embarrassing, but illuminating. You have dismissed a theory (NPT) that you have not understood and cannot define.

You have made a point of not reading my articles, which you are nevertheless willing to dismiss with the back of your hand.

You offer an example that has no relevance and which, if it did, would support the use of video fakery without understand it.

And you talk about a can full of Coke when you know that an airplane is more comparable to an empty can. I am stunned!

Absolutely. Here's one of them.



This does not mean I think an F-14 hit the south tower, but that looks like a real plane to me. How about you Jim?





Jim, you're a scientist, right?. Do me a favor. Shoot a filled can of Coke at 590 mph at 1/4 inch steel, let me know what happens.

After you get done with that, increase the density of the aluminum surrounding the a filled coke can and try it again with thicker steel.

[rob balsamo]

This is embarrassing, but illuminating. You have dismissed a theory (NPT) that you have not understood and cannot define.

And apparently you have not read the top of our home page.

You have made a point of not reading my articles, which you are nevertheless willing to dismiss with the back of your hand.

Because I have all the time in the world to research your work... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

You offer an example that has no relevance and which, if it did, would support the use of video fakery without understand it.

Jim, no matter how hard you try, Pilots For 9/11 Truth will never endorse your theories, nor any other theory. Get used to it. I been explaining this to you for years. This does not mean I do not like you as a person... for what it's worth... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And you talk about a can full of Coke when you know that an airplane is more comparable to an empty can. I am stunned!

Really? Aircraft don't hold liquid in their wings? And an empty Coke can has internal structural supports such as a main spar, bulkheads, and ribs??? Has seats, passengers (averaging 170-180 lbs of 70% liquid), a cockpit filled with heavy instruments, Flight Management computers, heavy ADC/IAC computers, DAU's, and luggage? I suppose an empty coke can also has 6000 lb engines hanging from it?

Ever held even a small Altimeter from a Cessna in your hands? It's heavier and more solid than a full can of Coke. Then go out an hold some of these in your hands....that's an avionics bay.. .just a quick search i did.

Jim, better yet, shoot an FMC computer into 1/4" steel at 590 mph, let me know how you make out. After you get done with that, try human dummies filled with liquid. Or perhaps even a thawed chicken.