IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

16 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Debunkers Respond To Dennis Cimino, A Few Comments Copy & Pasted

amazed!
post Mar 19 2012, 02:41 PM
Post #21





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,930
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 19 2012, 03:10 PM
Post #22



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Mar 19 2012, 11:28 PM
Post #23



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (lurker @ Mar 18 2012, 07:33 PM) *
hello all,

I have read cimino's article at veteranstoday.
but now I am very disturbed because in one of the pictures he shows a flight path that in no way resembles the path I have seen and learned from p4t's videos, where the approach and 330 degree descend is shown.

did I get something very wrong? please could explain someone what I am missing?


Hi lurker,

No you aren't missing anything.  You are correct.

Dennis Cimino is citing the old estimated path by Steve Koeppel that is nothing like the NTSB data and was estimated years before the NTSB data was released. 

I don't know why it was cited. It's irrelevant to the OCT.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 20 2012, 12:37 AM
Post #24



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 19 2012, 11:28 PM) *
Dennis Cimino is citing the old estimated path by Steve Koeppel that is nothing like the NTSB data and was estimated years before the NTSB data was released. 

I don't know why it was cited. It's irrelevant to the OCT.


In fairness to Dennis, he did email me. He says he did not choose that photograph.

Dennis can post here. It is up to him if he wants to.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Mar 20 2012, 12:46 AM
Post #25





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 228
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 19 2012, 11:37 PM) *
In fairness to Dennis, he did email me. He says he did not choose that photograph.


Hmmm...so it appears that it was an editorial decision made on behalf of Veterans Today?

Mr Fetzer, do you wish to comment?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 20 2012, 01:15 AM
Post #26





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



Both articles discuss the impossibility of a Boeing 757 travelling more than 500 mph close enough to the ground to take out those lampposts, which would have ripped the wing from the plane, caused the fuel to burst into flame, thrown it off of its trajectory and damaged the lawn in the process. A Boeing 757 cannot fly that fast at that altitude and ground effect would have made flying so close to the ground impossible. I cite "Pandora's Black Box" and the work by CIT, so I really have no idea what you are talking about. 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.

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 17 2012, 09:53 PM) *
"Flight 77" came in from the southwest according to the official story and directional damage.

I don't like to see verified, substantial on the ground and physical/aerodynamical evidence being lumped in with with "no plane" theories.

Whatever your take on Manhattan, Shanksville and the Pentagon are a different kettle of fish. There were planes that all evidence independently verifiable to us points to them not being 77 and 93. An explosive event occurred but witnesses, damage and lack of identifiable debris point to a flyover.

That link actually leads to this..

"9/11: Planes/No Planes and “Video Fakery"

Why place painstaking Pentagon research and solid proof under such a banner?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 20 2012, 01:17 AM
Post #27





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



Yes, of course. I put up all of the images and graphics, including the disputed one. So
I would be glad to replace it with a better depiction of the approach, where I thought the
one I used was appropriate. I am glad to be corrected, since apparently I was mistaken.

But bear in mind that it was intended to represent the "official account" of the approach
that an incompetent Islamic hijacker is supposed to have taken, not the actual approach
of a plane that flew on a virtually due east approach at higher altitude and slower speed.

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Mar 19 2012, 11:46 PM) *
Hmmm...so it appears that it was an editorial decision made on behalf of Veterans Today?

Mr Fetzer, do you wish to comment?


This post has been edited by jfetzer: Mar 20 2012, 01:20 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 20 2012, 01:20 AM
Post #28



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 20 2012, 01:15 AM) *
...and ground effect would have made flying so close to the ground impossible.



Wrong.

Read and learn.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10741011

QUOTE
I cite "Pandora's Black Box" and the work by CIT, so I really have no idea what you are talking about.


If you "cite" our work, be sure to actually read our work. Start with the link above and note the dates.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 20 2012, 01:22 AM
Post #29



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 20 2012, 01:17 AM) *
I would be glad to replace it with a better depiction of the approach, where I thought the
one I used was appropriate. I am glad to be corrected, since apparently I was mistaken.


You claim to have reviewed our work and yet you publish an illustration dated perhaps 2 years (or more) prior to the inception of Pilots For 9/11 Truth and release of the NTSB data?

Jim... i'm sad to say.. .but put down the crack pipe.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 20 2012, 01:31 AM
Post #30





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



Given the degree of respect I have for Rob and for Pilots, I simply do not understand the denigrating tone of this post. I have said to Rob that, when he insists that Pilots "does not deal in theory", he means that term in the weak sense of guess, speculation, or rumor. He surely does not mean it in the strong sense of empirically testable explanatory hypotheses, as in the case of Newton's theory of gravitation, Einstein's theory of relativity, or Darwin's theory of evolution.

All of my work--on JFK, 9/11 and Wellstone--has been dedicated to taking research on these complex and controversial subjects from the state of mere rumor and speculation to that of empirically testable hypotheses. I cannot understand why the head of Pilots would declare that he is "not going to read" an article that should be of enormous interest to the members of this group--and where I would welcome any explanation of what I or Dennis have wrong. That would be terrific!

Unless the same plane can be in two places at the same time, since Pilots has confirmed that Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time it was supposed to have been crashing in Shanksville, and that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was alleged to be effortlessly entering the South Tower, we have to be dealing with fabricated crash sites and some kind of fakery. That's not theory, that's logic! Surely Pilots ought to be contributing to exposing this, not disputing it.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 19 2012, 02:10 PM) *
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.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 20 2012, 01:35 AM
Post #31



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 20 2012, 01:31 AM) *
Unless the same plane can be in two places at the same time,


Jim, two, three, five.. .perhaps 20 aircraft...can have the same flight number.

I'll let that bake your noodle for a bit. tongue.gif

(certainly it will throw the duhbunkers for a loop)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 20 2012, 01:40 AM
Post #32





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



Well, I don't claim to be an expert on every aspect of 9/11. If I mistakenly picked the wrong diagram, you could have pointed that out to me. Now that you have, I have replaced it. But your attitude of "not going to read" a study that should be of such great interest to your society just stuns me. What have I or Dennis done to deserve that? I have supposed that research on 9/11 was a collaborative enterprise, which is why I founded Scholars: to bring together experts in different fields, including pilots. So if you have an axe to grind with me, that's fine; but I hope others will understand that I am open to and welcome constructive criticism.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 20 2012, 12:22 AM) *
You claim to have reviewed our work and yet you publish an illustration dated perhaps 2 years (or more) prior to the inception of Pilots For 9/11 Truth and release of the NTSB data?

Jim... i'm sad to say.. .but put down the crack pipe.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 20 2012, 01:43 AM
Post #33





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



This is bad, Rob. I cite your own work establishing that Flights 93 and 175
were not where they were supposed to be (which you feature right on your
own home page), and now you are telling me that it doesn't mean squat? I
think your petulance with me has caused you to lose your mental balance.
I am sorry, but posts like this should be beneath the founder of this society.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 20 2012, 12:35 AM) *
Jim, two, three, five.. .perhaps 20 aircraft...can have the same flight number.

I'll let that bake your noodle for a bit. tongue.gif

(certainly it will throw the duhbunkers for a loop)

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 20 2012, 01:48 AM
Post #34



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 20 2012, 01:40 AM) *
But your attitude of "not going to read" a study that should be of such great interest to your society just stuns me.


Why should I bother to read your study, when you haven't bothered to research your "study" with information that has been available since Aug 2006?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm

Not to mention the fact that is it fully analyzed in Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77, release Feb 2007.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 20 2012, 01:51 AM
Post #35



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 20 2012, 01:43 AM) *
I am sorry, but posts like this should be beneath the founder of this society.


And yet you still cannot determine the difference between a Tail number and Flight number, nor understand information that has been available since 2006, yet you claim to have reviewed.

You have a lot of mistakes to correct in your paper Mr Fetzer. Good luck with that.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dennis Cimino
post Mar 20 2012, 02:25 AM
Post #36





Group: Guest
Posts: 31
Joined: 19-November 07
Member No.: 2,496



QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 19 2012, 07:41 PM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dennis Cimino
post Mar 20 2012, 02:28 AM
Post #37





Group: Guest
Posts: 31
Joined: 19-November 07
Member No.: 2,496



QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 19 2012, 07:41 PM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 20 2012, 09:16 AM
Post #38



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Wow, i see we have a huge jump in hits viewing this thread. I went to check our referral stats to see where it's coming from and surprise, surprise, Bill "Pinch/trebor/streetcar/sweetpea/15 other socks" Paisley continues his daily obsession with our work. He is shooting his wad over at JREF... Apparently he thinks we are in Meltdown mode and that I had a hand in the referenced article. As usual, Pinch prematurely ejects...lol

For our new visitors who wish to learn more about such an obsessed stalker as "Pinch", click here...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21900


What a tool....

Bill, go out.... get some fresh air. Your daily obsession with people who you think are nuts is doing you no good. But hey, thanks for all the fish (hits)... smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 20 2012, 10:15 AM
Post #39





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



And of course I have consistently drawn the distinction between the flights
and the planes, observing that "Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled
to fly that day, while the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were
not de-registered until 28 September 2005, so how can planes that were not
in the air have crashed or planes that crashed have still been in the air four
years later?" It is false that I have not separated the planes and flight #s.

What this means is that Rob's complaint would only be justifiable if Pilots'
own studies failed to draw that distinction, which of course they do not. So
I really do not understand what the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth is doing in
implying that I did not draw a distinction that I have drawn--repeatedly--in
my published and spoken work during interviews and public lectures? Since
I fault those on the other side for fallacies of equivocation, I cannot not do
that even for Rob, who appears to have wanted to score cheap points here.

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 20 2012, 12:43 AM) *
This is bad, Rob. I cite your own work establishing that Flights 93 and 175
were not where they were supposed to be (which you feature right on your
own home page), and now you are telling me that it doesn't mean squat? I
think your petulance with me has caused you to lose your mental balance.
I am sorry, but posts like this should be beneath the founder of this society.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 20 2012, 10:24 AM
Post #40



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



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 -



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

16 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th October 2014 - 03:02 AM