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

[jfetzer]

In case anyone believes that Pilots determination that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was supposed to have been effortlessly entering the South Tower, was a turning point for me, I had reached that conclusion already in "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", published in OpEdNews in 2008. What Pilots confirmed was simply another piece of the puzzle, not the proof some kind of video fakery had taken place in New York. Likewise, my earlier piece, "What didn't happen at the Pentagon", was published on rense.com and my blog back in 2010. Indeed, I have tracked down an earlier version that appeared on "The Daily Paul" back on 9 June 2009, http://www.dailypaul.com/95834/what-didn-t...at-the-pentagon, So this suggestion that I was "piggybacking" on Dennis is simply absurd. And the idea that I was trading on Pilots late discover that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh was the basis for my arguments about no planes and video fakery is equally absurd. I have been publishing about these subjects for years, where some of the most important studies related to the question are included in the references below.

Morgan Reynolds had to beat up on me for at least 18 months before I could even take seriously the very idea that no Boeings had hit either of the Twin Towers until I realized that video fakery was compatible with real planes, since the videos might have been altered to conceal something about the planes or their interaction with the buildings. At that point, I began to interview a series of students of 9/11 who had done serious research on this subject. I actually interviewed at least fifteen (15) of them, including going through their web sited and multiple videos (over and over) before I became convinced that fakery had to have taken place by Joe Keith's argument that, not only is the entry into the South Tower in violation of Newton's laws, but that, by a frame-by-frame advance, he and others had established that the "plane" had passed through its complete length into the tower in the same number of frames that it had passes through its own length in air--and that this was the case for both the Hezaranhi and Evan Fairbanks's videos. After that, I realized that anyone who denied something was wrong did not know the evidence.

Why mrmitosis would suggest "Of course, Fetzer has made a transparent and opportunistic attempt to use the article to bolster support for his own opinions…inviting people to explain why “we are wrong” (…who’s “we”?), and linking to previous articles which were primarily concerned with NPT and video fakery", on the one hand, and also remark, "Incidentally, Jim manages to restrain himself from mentioning NPT, or anything else exotic, in his introduction – why not, if this is one of the article’s core arguments? Why does he choose to wait for a discussion like this to raise NPT?" is simply ignorant. I had ALREADY PUBLISHED several articles about NPT, including "9/11: Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'" on 20 February 2012, as well as the separate article about "The 9/11 Passenger Paradox" (with Dean Harwell) on 15 March 2012. Dennis and I had discussed them both and I thought it would be valuable to have someone of his background and experience address the Pentagon. So we put it together.

ON WHAT HAPPENED AT THE PENTAGON:

"What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/wh...t-pentagon.html

"Pandora's Black Box, Chapter 2"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...66571196607580#

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to
American77 http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Dennis-Cimino-AA77-FDR.html

"Inside Job: Seven Questions about 9/11"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/05/in...ions-about-911/

“9/11: The official account of the Pentagon attach is a fantasy” (with Dennis Cimino)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/13/91...k-is-a-fantasy/

ON PLANES OR NO PLANES:

Elias Davidsson, "There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime
of 9/11" http://www.opednews.com/articles/There-is-...100811-366.html

David Ray Griffin, "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=16924

Leslie Raphael, "Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged"
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm

"New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Proof...080729-132.html

"9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed

"Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/11/in...-911-duplicity/

"9/11: An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about 'Absurdities'"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/03/91...ut-absurdities/

Killtown on Shanksville,
http://www.nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%2...02010%20Oct.mp3

Pilots for 9/11 Truth, “ACARS CONFIRMED – 9/11 Aircraft Airborne Long After Crash” (Flight 175),
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRM...FTER-CRASH.html

Pilots for 9/11 Truth, “United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash – According to ATC/Radar”
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/united-93-still-airborne.html

“9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/91...d-video-fakery/

“The 9/11 Passenger Paradox: What happened to Flight 93?” (with Dean Hartwell)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/15/th...d-to-flight-93/

This post has been edited by jfetzer: Mar 21 2012, 01:09 AM

[mrmitosis]

Why mrmitosis would suggest "Of course, Fetzer has made a transparent and opportunistic attempt to use the article to bolster support for his own opinions…inviting people to explain why “we are wrong” (…who’s “we”?), and linking to previous articles which were primarily concerned with NPT and video fakery", on the one hand, and also remark, "Incidentally, Jim manages to restrain himself from mentioning NPT, or anything else exotic, in his introduction – why not, if this is one of the article’s core arguments? Why does he choose to wait for a discussion like this to raise NPT?" is simply ignorant.

I framed my questions exactly how I intended to ask them, Mr Fetzer.

I don’t need to be intimately familiar with your prior research to be curious as to whether or not Dennis agrees with your prior research. Of course, it is my suspicion at this point that he does not necessarily share your opinions regarding faked planes or video. As I explained, there is a vast chasm between (i) questioning the physical evidence relating to the planes and (ii) questioning the physical existence of the planes.

As for video fakery, this can hardly be treated as a pivotal issue, when there isn’t any video evidence of AA77 available to discuss or evaluate.

I stand correctable on any of the above, but until Dennis chooses to step forward with a definitive statement, I think I’m within my rights to raise questions about your involvement in Cimino’s article...before, during and after it appeared at Veterans Today. The way you’ve chosen to participate in the discussion - both pre- and post-publication - just seems to benefit your agenda a little too conveniently.

[jfetzer]

Another nice example of misunderstanding NPT. It has nothing to do with video fakery per se, which would be any use of videos to convey false or misleading impressions of the events of 9/11. It has to do with the plane. NPT holds that no Boeings crashed at any of the alleged sites--not in Shanksville, not at the Pentagon, not into the North Tower and, most surprisingly, not into the South Tower. So the absence of videos in Shaniksville and at the Pentagon--which exist, of course, but have not been released (except for three that show no more than that single frame originally labeled "plane"--but where video fakery was used in New York, where evidence shows that simulations of planes (four UAVs in the case of the North Tower, what appears to have been a sophisticated hologram in the case of the South) were taken by witnesses to be real planes, even though they were performing feats that no real planes could perform. I recommend you go back and reconsider my studies, which you have not understood.

I framed my questions exactly how I intended to ask them, Mr Fetzer.

I don’t need to be intimately familiar with your prior research to be curious as to whether or not Dennis agrees with your prior research. Of course, it is my suspicion at this point that he does not necessarily share your opinions regarding faked planes or video. As I explained, there is a vast chasm between (i) questioning the physical evidence relating to the planes and (ii) questioning the physical existence of the planes.

As for video fakery, this can hardly be treated as a pivotal issue, when there isn’t any video evidence of AA77 available to discuss or evaluate.

I stand correctable on any of the above, but until Dennis chooses to step forward with a definitive statement, I think I’m within my rights to raise questions about your involvement in Cimino’s article...before, during and after it appeared at Veterans Today. The way you’ve chosen to participate in the discussion - both pre- and post-publication - just seems to benefit your agenda a little too conveniently.

[woody]

Another nice example of misunderstanding NPT. It has nothing to do with video fakery per se, which would be any use of videos to convey false or misleading impressions of the events of 9/11. It has to do with the plane. NPT holds that no Boeings crashed at any of the alleged sites--not in Shanksville, not at the Pentagon, not into the North Tower and, most surprisingly, not into the South Tower.

I remember the days when a certain Mr. Pickering tried to smear the CIT research with NPT by coining the term "no plane at the Pentagon", implying that CIT were working on the same poor intellectual level and propagating a similar nonsense like Gerard Homgren R.I.P., Morgan Reynolds, the webfairy etc. etc. This term was eagerly picked up by Mr. Hoffman, Mrs. Ashley and other people of the radical LIHOP clique.

Funnily, Mr. Fetzer, you're doing exactly the same, blurring the difference between painstaking research and unsubstantiated speculation. It nearly looks like you're a buddy of Mr.Pickering. You two are damaging the best evidence we have, only from different positions. It's kind of a good cop/bad cop game.

[Tamborine man]

I remember the days when a certain Mr. Pickering tried to smear the CIT research with NPT by coining the term "no plane at the Pentagon", implying that CIT were working on the same poor intellectual level and propagating a similar nonsense like Gerard Homgren R.I.P., Morgan Reynolds, the webfairy etc. etc. This term was eagerly picked up by Mr. Hoffman, Mrs. Ashley and other people of the radical LIHOP clique.

Funnily, Mr. Fetzer, you're doing exactly the same, blurring the difference between painstaking research and unsubstantiated speculation. It nearly looks like you're a buddy of Mr.Pickering. You two are damaging the best evidence we have, only from different positions. It's kind of a good cop/bad cop game.

Com'on people be real now, please!

If NPT simply means that none of the 'official' planes crashed at either locations, then I'm certainly also a NPT adherent and supporter.

Please try to use your imagination to the fullest. Regarding second tower, we see on all videos a plane slicing into the building effortlessly.
No resistance by the steel columns nor the steel spandrel plates or the concrete floors behind the plates is offered to any of the weaker
parts of the airplane, such as the wingtips and the horizontal and vertical stabilizers. None whatsoever.

But if that's not enough, next we come to the truly bizarre and totally mad:
In the instant the plane has fully penetrated the facade it comes to an abrupt halt!!??

We know this, because the split second after the plane disappears into the building, a big fireball takes shape on the right side of the building
15 – 20 meters along from the impact facade. Not halfway, not ¾ way into the building, but within the first quarter, or third, of the way in!
A fireball also forms outside of the entry hole.

We also know (because of the impact hole and the alleged direction the plane flew), that apart from the port side wing, most of the plane
would have missed the center core of the building, and hence should have continued more or less partly intact (because of the floors only)
on its over 800 km/h speed through the open office spaces, impacting the side wall and the far end wall, a mere 64 meters away from the
entry opening – or ca. 26 meters away from the 'undamaged' nose of the plane!! But (ignoring everything about the so-called "nosecone")
none of this happened!
No further impact (now from the inside of the tower) was visible either from the right side wall or from the North end wall in any of the
videos or photos we have seen of the exterior of the building. No outward bulging whatsoever of the walls, is seen anywhere!


The plane apparently stopped, dead in its track, just inside the perimeter wall!


I truly hope that not one single member of PF9/11T will even dream of entertaining this idea that such insanity could have taken place
…….Please!!!!

Let us instead gladly give this preposterous lunacy to the 'loyalists', the shills, the 'paid agents' and their 'research assistants', together with
the rest of the truly ignorant and hopelessly immature twerps amongst them.

The planes seen and witnessed in the skies that day is a completely different story that deserves its own close scrutiny and investigation,
and which has already for a long period admirably been started by many good people.

NPT therefore - seen in the Right Light - is an absolute fact as far as I'm concerned, and should naturally be supported by all other just and
wise people! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Cheers

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Mar 23 2012, 03:12 AM

[woody]

Com'on people be real now, please!

If NPT simply means that none of the 'official' planes crashed at either locations, then I'm certainly also a NPT adherent and supporter.

...

NPT therefore - seen in the Right Light - is an absolute fact as far as I'm concerned, and should naturally be supported by all other just and
wise people! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Cheers

Certainly the term "No plane theory" can theoretidally be interpreted in a way which is compatible with natural laws and dozens of eyewitnesses. But that's not the point. For years now, the term NPT has the negative connotation of faked WTC impacts and is linked with Gerard Holmgren R.I.P, Nico Haupt, Rosalee Grable, Killtown, Morgan Reynolds, and some other names whose reputation is not the best, to say the least. It is therefore way too late to discuss the semantics of NPT. Any attempt to establish the term NPT as designation for a serious branch of research bears the big danger of mixing truth with half-truth and outright nuts.

Mr. Fetzer should know this, and I'm afraid he knows it.

[Tamborine man]

Certainly the term "No plane theory" can theoretidally be interpreted in a way which is compatible with natural laws and dozens of eyewitnesses. But that's not the point. For years now, the term NPT has the negative connotation of faked WTC impacts and is linked with Gerard Holmgren R.I.P, Nico Haupt, Rosalee Grable, Killtown, Morgan Reynolds, and some other names whose reputation is not the best, to say the least. It is therefore way too late to discuss the semantics of NPT. Any attempt to establish the term NPT as designation for a serious branch of research bears the big danger of mixing truth with half-truth and outright nuts.

Mr. Fetzer should know this, and I'm afraid he knows it.

Sorry, but i'm not sure i understand a word of what you're talking about here!

If you believe that no planes of any kind crashed at any of the 4 locations, that
would surely indicate the fact that 'fakery' in one form or another had taken place, yes?

If you believe that planes of any kind crashed at the 4 locations, then i can understand
why you don't appreciate the term NPT, but judging from your comment above, that
doesn't seem to be the case, correct?

If the term NPT appears to be such a problem, perhaps all that is needed is to find
another term that also would describe this same situation, but one we all could live with.
That would solve this problem rather quickly, so perhaps somebody could come up with
some suggestions we could all then vote upon?

I don't know much about Haupt, Grable and Reynolds, but thought that Killtown was
supposed to be one of the 'good' guys. Never heard him say anything i would disagree
with!

Concerning Holmgren, here's a link to an interview with him back in 2005 that i can't
find anything wrong with either.


http://www.septemberclues.info/AnInterviewGerardHolmgren.htm

Cheers

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Mar 23 2012, 11:21 AM