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  « < 11 12 13 14 15 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Debunkers Respond To Dennis Cimino, A Few Comments Copy & Pasted

amazed!
post Mar 31 2012, 08:36 PM
Post #241





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,920
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



The approach to the tower. The only part we got to see.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 31 2012, 08:46 PM
Post #242



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 31 2012, 08:36 PM) *
The approach to the tower. The only part we got to see.



Exactly which "tower" did a 757 approach? And from which angle and distance did you 'get to see' which "looked" slower than an A-4 and F/A-18 at an airshow?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Mar 31 2012, 09:30 PM
Post #243





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 376
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (amazed! @ Apr 1 2012, 04:35 AM) *
Rob

Regarding the airspeed question, I was thinking yesterday after leaving Sun 'n Fun in Lakeland, that somehow to me, the 757 approach just did not LOOK like 500 knots to me.

Just watched a bunch of high speed passes by A-4, F-18 and others at Lakeland. Somehow that Boeing just didn't look like 500 knots. ?


Dear 'amazed'.

Interesting observation.

Think, Mr Balsamo is trying to tell you, he considers the aircraft at the South Tower was a Boeing 767.
The video he included showing the --what ever it was-- that went past that fast at the airshow over water, certainly looked to go very fast, mind you it was a bit closer to the camera, most likely.

Am doing some work on this subject, currently, when it is further advanced will post the considerations.

Certainly, the speed is an interesting consideration, as video speed should match, radar speed, etc.
One, has to wonder which came first.
Mr Cinimo, may have some "colourful" thought s on that, (luv reading the man's essays), he no doubt really understands the "subject".
Can well understand why he puts such little 'value' in the published information.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Apr 1 2012, 12:21 AM
Post #244





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 31 2012, 02:28 AM) *
Mind pointing out where I said "pure dog manure"?

Your reply is beyond ridiculous!

It is almost convoluted…

I have not said anything! [Yet]

There are no witnesses on either side of the subject.

My point was that “Tamborine Man” earned the right to believe whatever he wishes to believe”! Apparently…this bothers you!

I do not agree with the T-Man on every subject and you would know this if you ever got involved with “Life after Death”, Dragon Blood-line” or “Global Perspectives”.

Your argument shows that you do not read very well…

A shill is a plant or stooge who publicly does not disclose who he or she is!

A shill is “Pure dog manure”.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Apr 1 2012, 02:03 AM
Post #245





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 907
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 29 2012, 01:46 AM) *
I suppose I should point out where I have previously said before I post....


Nor do I TM, but they are self explanatory. Just read it?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10804353

I also came across this video which pretty much sums up what I was trying to convey in that post

Flight 175 - Hijacked Boeing Or High Tech Military Weapon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjpFnYMBoBg


Yes OSS, i've read all your posts and seen all the videos you have linked to!

I don't personally believe either missiles or buster-bunkers have been used at WTC.
Think that all the different types of 'explosives' used, were pre-planted and synchronized
with the pretend impact by the "phantom" plane.

Have for a long time closely followed all the research done about the "Gelatin B team's"
activities on the 91floor in Tower 1 prior to 9/11. Find it an absolutely fascinating and
compelling topic. Much more interesting info has recently been added, which definitely
will cause many more peoples eyes 'to shut wide open'!
Have you too been following this, OSS?

QUOTE
If, as you say, "all have phantom projection phenomenon in common", then those same videos have had the greasey mits of government all over them.
With that same logic or opinion, the video in its entirity should be rejected.

I'm not playing mind games or busting your stones TM. And I know it's pointless trying to change your mind. I just don't buy it.

What swung it for me was all of the other anomalies and paths of investigation where real answers can be demanded, have been thrown under the umbrella of "video/image fakery" and NPT. Not least the long list of legitimate questions this forum has brought up.

That and the damage scars that have been caused to the facade.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77...werzoomhole.jpg

Could explosives of any kind have made the damage caused where the left wing impact scar is? Indented but not broken? Or the slice where the base of the vertical stabilizer was shown to have hit?


What you're inferring above and in your comments to elreb below, make me think that
you perhaps must completely have misunderstood what i mean by the term 'hologram'
projection, so please let me clarify.

I think of course (as the DARPA paper sets out), that the 'projection' was done quite a
distance away, far from prying eyes, and with only a small group of accomplishes
participating.
I wouldn't think that the Naudet's, Hazerkhani, Fairbanks, Taylor or any of the various
helicopter crews had any idea, that what they were actually filming was anything else
but what they thought it to be, namely a real plane! I see no reason whatsoever why
these people should have been told. Better to have kept them in darkness, together
with everyone else about 'this deception', i'd say!

QUOTE
You seem have no problem with "video fakery" and NPT being touted here, which would involve scores of named authors of multiple images and videos being involved in a high risk elaborate hoax, having the holy grail of "proof" that could see gallows being hammered together in the morning, yet still alive.


In one video i saw, the plane appears out of nowhere in the sky 7-8 seconds (iirc)
before "impact". Can't remember where i saw it though!

On a close-up of WTC1, just after the explosion, something 'strange' happens where
the starboard wingtip should have entered. A small nearly horizontal row of 'fires'
appear. Small 'cutter-charges' perhaps?

Cheers

PS!
I think the plane coming over the annex at the pentagon was real.
Am not wholly sure about the plane at Shanksville!

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Apr 1 2012, 02:07 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Apr 1 2012, 02:28 AM
Post #246





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 907
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



Hi Elreb and Onesliceshort, i really like you both, so please calm down, will you?

Just use the "quote function" properly - that should sort this 'shit' out .... wink.gif

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 1 2012, 08:19 AM
Post #247



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (elreb @ Apr 1 2012, 05:21 AM) *
Your reply is beyond ridiculous!

It is almost convoluted…

I have not said anything! [Yet]

There are no witnesses on either side of the subject.


Very touchy Elreb. Do you always get this wound up whenever somebody doesn't answer your two liner wise cracks with reasoning?

And mind expanding on the "there are no witnesses on either side of the subject"??

I know there are no witnesses to any "flying object" of any kind on the official path through the lightpoles.
And that all witnesses with a view of the aircraft (singular) place it away from that area.

Can you name any witnesses that counter them?

Let's see what you originally said.

QUOTE (elreb)
No "special flying object" struck the Pentagon = Pure dog manure...We call this selective reasoning…


First off "selective reasoning"?

QUOTE
Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs


My "beliefs" regarding the Pentagon op is based on independently verified and corroborated witness testimony, the total blanket censorship and withholding of evidence and the alleged impact damage itself.

QUOTE (elreb)
According to you the video, light poles, taxi driver and whatever else…were all “faked”. 

I have no problem with this…if you could explain how they did it! 


"According to you"?

Here was my original post..

QUOTE (onesliceshort)
We've had this conversation countless times elreb.
People actually got off their backsides and went to the actual site of the Pentagon black op.
People actually pulled themselves out of their armchairs and spoke to multlple witnesses.
People actually tried to cut through the fog of "theories" about the Pentagon up until 2006.

I actually believed that a missile had struck the building. Then an A3SkyWarrior. 

These people who run the risk of arrest found that all witnesses who were actually there (and not inventions or embellishments of the whore media), described seeing a commercial aircraft, or an aircraft of those dimensions.

These people found the same recurring factor in all witnesses interviewed. They either categorically placed the aircraft on a course that can't physically or aerodynamically line up with the directional damage, or described major contradictions in the OCT.

These people found that there was no simultaneous aircraft as the one witnessed flying NOC.

These people found nobody who saw a missile. Nobody.

That is evidence.

What you're proposing has no legs.

In saying that there was a "missile" or "second plane", you not only confuse the issue, but you contradict yourself.

1. The aircraft was not witnessed on the path through the lightpoles. In fact there are no verifiable witnesses to the poles being struck (for the former reason).

2. The missile theory also requires the lightpole area to have been "faked" as it couldn't possibly have knocked them over.

3. The missile theory requires the same taxi driver, who denies to this day being on the bridge where the poles were down, to be lying.

You seem have no problem with "video fakery" and NPT being touted here, which would involve scores of named authors of multiple images and videos being involved in a high risk elaborate hoax, having the holy grail of "proof" that could see gallows being hammered together in the morning, yet still alive. 

Yet, you are unwilling to believe, based on evidence that the perps threw a few fucking lightpoles on the ground, possibly during witnessed secret service ops around the helipad and lawn area "for the visit of Bush to the Pentagon" on the 10th? Or the witnessed "removal" or repositioning of trailers in front of the "impact hole"? 

That the possibility that they detonated explosives with a scrapped Boeing in one of those empty, renovated rooms or within the trailer is beyond the realms of your imagination, but that the prospect of a Hollywood style, hologram and 40 deep state operatives within the photography and video business (and then some) deserves a hearing?

 rolleyes.gif 


Read through the research at this forum

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showforum=6

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=104

Or watch the video presentation

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

The comment regarding the secret service being in the area the day before (Sean Boger in the heliport):

http://www.thepentacon.com/neit299.pdf

QUOTE
On September 10th, it was kind of busy because the President flew out.  He flew out that Monday, and whenever the President flies out, it is always a dog and pony show, you know.

You have got the Secret Service guys coming around and the dogs sniffing, and everything.  So it was kind of like a big old deal.  And so on September 10th, you know it was really kind of busy.  And he was scheduled to come back on September 11th.

So we know it was going to be another dog and pony show, but we didn't thik it was going to happen that soon.

Sean Boger


PenRen contractor Michael DiPaula is on record as having said that the trailers were moved on the 10th September.


QUOTE (elreb)
My point was that “Tamborine Man” earned the right to believe whatever he wishes to believe”! Apparently…this bothers you!

I do not agree with the T-Man on every subject and you would know this if you ever got involved with “Life after Death”, Dragon Blood-line” or “Global Perspectives”.

Your argument shows that you do not read very well…


Tamborine Man knows that I value his opinions (I hope), but not once did I ridicule him or his beliefs. I went out of my way to show him the flaws with NPT in a constructive way. And I think I've done that.
You're the one being the asshole here.

QUOTE (elreb)
A shill is a plant or stooge who publicly does not disclose who he or she is!

A shill is “Pure dog manure”


So, people who disclose their identities are therefore not shills? Gotcha.
That's an insult to the majority of forum members here. My reasons for remaining anonymous are purely personal. As I said, Rob and those I confide in know my identity. Not because of some dark, malevolent reason but because I don't want creeps and stalkers torturing my family and their personal details. Got it?

And I'm "pure dog manure"? Gotcha.

Unbunch your cotton panties elreb and show me your evidence that a "flying object" struck the Pentagon.

And grow up.

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Apr 1 2012, 08:21 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Apr 1 2012, 10:49 AM
Post #248





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,920
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I'm sorry guys--my bad.

767 approach to the tower.

And since the radar info agrees with the NTSB calculations based on video, that seems to settle the question. The elephant in the room is the large margin by which Vmo was exceeded. One of those unsolved mysteries I guess. blink.gif

In the NTSB calculations, I wonder if there could be any sort of parallax error?

This post has been edited by amazed!: Apr 1 2012, 10:57 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Apr 2 2012, 07:19 AM
Post #249





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 376
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (amazed! @ Apr 2 2012, 12:19 AM) *
I'm sorry guys--my bad.

767 approach to the tower.

And since the radar info agrees with the NTSB calculations based on video, that seems to settle the question. The elephant in the room is the large margin by which Vmo was exceeded. One of those unsolved mysteries I guess. blink.gif

In the NTSB calculations, I wonder if there could be any sort of parallax error?


Dear 'amazed'

We all live in a 'world' of "parallax", unless we are rooted to the spot, in an unmoving "vista'.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Apr 2 2012, 04:41 PM
Post #250





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



as much as it pains me to do this, well, it has to be done. a certain poster here, had something on veteranstoday that was, ah, unflattering, sparse and quite frankly odious. it's the same old npt thang.
you know, the one that goes: if a creature is eating grass in a field it must be a cow. and for those of the logic challenged persuasion- that's just wrong as everyone knows, because any of a number of creatures eat grass including cows.

so instead of adopting a harmony building approach such as 'ngfp', for 'no government fable planes' or 'nosp' for 'no official story planes' or myriad other acronyms available and perhaps generally agreed upon, our crusader begins his don quixote 'npt/hologram' gospel tirade scorched earth policy quest. why? ego? huh? is that it? the truth be damned as long as i'm the loudest. you made your bed, you sleep in it.

i am only one tiny voice, but i'm NOT sticking up for you anymore.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Apr 2 2012, 05:39 PM
Post #251





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,920
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Got to agree with you GP.

I thought today's article at VT was off base, and rather a shrill and desperate attempt to save face by Jim Fetzer.

Why in christ's name he can't just use specific language I don't know. And until somebody can show us a hologram machine with sound effects that could work on that scale, all the talk about holograms is getting past silly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Apr 2 2012, 06:03 PM
Post #252





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Apr 2 2012, 10:41 AM) *
if a creature is eating grass in a field it must be a cow.

I was thinking Bison or Buffalo…

I have always liked brother “GP” and he even has a profile.

I can not believe that I was actually a recruiter for the Marine Corp back in 1970…

The nice thing about Maui is we don’t wear underwear or shoes.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 2 2012, 06:17 PM
Post #253



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (amazed! @ Apr 2 2012, 05:39 PM) *
Got to agree with you GP.

I thought today's article at VT was off base, and rather a shrill and desperate attempt to save face by Jim Fetzer.

Why in christ's name he can't just use specific language I don't know. And until somebody can show us a hologram machine with sound effects that could work on that scale, all the talk about holograms is getting past silly.



I just briefly skimmed Fetzer's latest attack piece. Is it any surprise it was posted on April Fool's Day?

lol

"was it a mistake to publish with Fetzer? I don't think so. He and I have had disagreements over some issues but we don't scream at each other or
get into that betari box over those. I cite the video fakery in my audio interview not in this VT piece. but in no way does anything I WROTE ever infer that no planes were used." - Dennis Cimino


Bolding mine.

There is much more. We will see how this plays out.

By the way Jim, I thank you for making it clear we do not support any theory that you offer. You may want to pass that on to people like Lawson and Bursill, who have been attacking us for years as NPTer's. Thanks!


"this last piece [written by Jim Fetzer] I think I would have rather not been a part of..." - Dennis Cimino
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 2 2012, 08:51 PM
Post #254



Group Icon

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



Let' look at Jim Fetzer's "reason and rationality"

QUOTE
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/01/re...amo/175diagram/

What it shows is that Flight 175 was intersecting with eight (8) floors that consisted of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and to the external support columns at the other, where each floor was covered with 4-8” of concrete, representing an acre of concrete apiece and posing enormous horizontal resistance to any airplane’s penetration into the building.


Just an example of what was posted in this thread discussing the many flaws in his claims:

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 30 2012, 03:01 PM) *
I honestly can't see how preplanted explosives, whether directional or whatever could have carved out such a detailed signature of an aircraft on the facade of tower 2.



I mean, look at the imprint of the left wing. Those panels are bent but not broken. And the damage from the base of the vertical stabilizer can be clearly seen.


Was that post of mine a "reasonable and rational" observation?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 2 2012, 09:01 PM
Post #255



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Apr 2 2012, 08:51 PM) *
Let' look at Jim Fetzer's "reason and rationality"



Fetzer is also a confirmed liar.

Jim claims in his article....


"As an example of Pilots’ concerns, they offered the following caveat, suggesting they were parsing some language:

* Pilotsfor911truth.org does not make the claim that “No Boeing 757 hit the
Pentagon”. We have analyzed the Flight Data Recorder data provided by the
 NTSB and have shown factual analysis of that data. We do not offer theory.


While we do not make this claim in these words, the analysis we present on
 the basis of the NTSB’s own data factually contradicts the official account
 that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon–if trends are continued beyond end of data
records–and therefore supports the inference that American Airlines Flight 
77 did not hit the building based upon that data."


Clearly the "caveat" Jim is referencing is the text which I have colored red.

Now here are the facts...,

Jim Fetzer wrote that "caveat" when I objected to his article on the topic. In fact, Jim wrote every "caveat" when I objected to his article.

It is true I agreed to it in order to not create too many waves at the time (my bad), but it was not a "caveat" written by "Pilots" as Jim now misleadingly suggests in his current article. Furthermore, Jim Fetzer, still to this day, does not understand the difference between a flight number and a tail number, nor can understand simple data.. (which many times has been offered to him) ....yet he claims to have taught critical thinking? Really?

I wonder when Jim Fetzer will get tired of losing support within the ranks of people he considers his "natural allies". lol


Jim,, in case you didn't notice years ago.. .you were never my "ally". In reality....You have been nothing but a passive thorn in my side. Notice I have never linked to your work, let alone your site.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/media.html

(By the way, I have all the emails saved from when Fetzer pulled his last BS trying to rope P4T into unsubstantiated claims... feel free to email me and I will have no problem forwarding you the whole exchange).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Apr 2 2012, 09:40 PM
Post #256





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



Professor Jim Fetzer, guru of reason, rationality, metaphysics and epistimology, interpreted the purpose behind this topic exactly wrong:

"...I came as a rather surprising that Pilots for 9/11 Truth was featuring a new thread on its forum entitled, “Debunkers respond to Dennis Cimino”, which was dedicated to attacking (“debunking”) the article we had published..."

No, Jim. The thread was started as a means of dealing with comments made by debunkers in response to Dennis' article. I had an inclination that those responses (copy and pasted in italics on the OP) must be folly, so I did what seemed sensible at the time, which was to consult people who are qualified aviation professionals who have spent time researching the 9/11 attacks and the anomalies.

As it turned out, I handled it on my own. But it amazes me that Jim thinks I strolled into this forum for the purpose of attacking Dennis and his article, when anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the English language would realise that the opposite is the case. I think we can all agree that words like "attacking" and "defending" have quite different meanings.

Jim Fetzer is the Hani Hanjour of scholarship. Walks the walk, talks the talk, but fails the basics.

English Comprehension 101, Jim. Enrol, pay attention in class this time, and re-sit the exam. We can take it from there.

This post has been edited by mrmitosis: Apr 2 2012, 09:41 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 2 2012, 10:07 PM
Post #257



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Apr 2 2012, 09:40 PM) *
Professor Jim Fetzer, guru of reason, rationality, metaphysics and epistimology, interpreted the purpose behind this topic exactly wrong:

"...I came as a rather surprising that Pilots for 9/11 Truth was featuring a new thread on its forum entitled, “Debunkers respond to Dennis Cimino”, which was dedicated to attacking (“debunking”) the article we had published..."

No, Jim. The thread was started as a means of dealing with comments made by debunkers in response to Dennis' article. I had an inclination that those responses (copy and pasted in italics on the OP) must be folly, so I did what seemed sensible at the time, which was to consult people who are qualified aviation professionals who have spent time researching the 9/11 attacks and the anomalies.

As it turned out, I handled it on my own. But it amazes me that Jim thinks I strolled into this forum for the purpose of attacking Dennis and his article, when anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the English language would realise that the opposite is the case. I think we can all agree that words like "attacking" and "defending" have quite different meanings.

Jim Fetzer is the Hani Hanjour of scholarship. Walks the walk, talks the talk, but fails the basics.

English Comprehension 101, Jim. Enrol, pay attention in class this time, and re-sit the exam. We can take it from there.



Yes, and the real sad part of it all, is that you were trying to defend Dennis when creating this thread.

"anyway, I had very little control over the art work here. that's the price I pay for publishing with a co-author or sponsor.


in any case, that's the reason for these other photos. all of them but '2' are not mine. they're FETZERS!

.........

so you guys can distance yourself from it." - Dennis Cimino



"but they can't heap me into the 'no planer' gang quite yet. that's not me.

planes were used." - Dennis Cimino



"I noted a few people actually did defend me a bit. because they actually read the stuff and didn't immediately attack my ass for no good reason.

being affiliated with Fetzer is not SIAMESE TWINS turf.

I'm not joined at the hip. ...... that does NOT put me in the 'no planer' camp." - Dennis Cimino


The only thing Jim Fetzer has done.... is accuse those of which he sources to support his theories.... as "obtuse" and an "intellectual tyrant", among other name calling.

This is called cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Fetzer reminds me of the polar opposite of JREF... such as Keith "Beachnut" Beachy, who cannot determine the difference between a 757 and an A320. Especially given the fact that Jim Fetzer STILL cannot determine the speeds reported, even after given such data on a silver platter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Apr 3 2012, 12:19 PM
Post #258





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 907
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 31 2012, 11:51 PM) *
Let' look at Jim Fetzer's "reason and rationality"



Just an example of what was posted in this thread discussing the many flaws in his claims:



Was that post of mine a "reasonable and rational" observation?



Hi OSS,

have a look at this video, and please tell me what you think?





Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 3 2012, 03:56 PM
Post #259



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Apr 3 2012, 05:19 PM) *
Hi OSS,

have a look at this video, and please tell me what you think?


<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1eqXb2CTu50?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Cheers


Hi TM,

I see a gradual destruction of a standard aircraft travelling at runway speed. The wheels are pulled away from underneath, the fuselage is dragging, slowing it down, a desintegration before the wings are shorn.

I know the aircraft frame is fragile (and an uncle of mine always said that if ever I heard the "brace, brace" call, the reason for it was really to kiss your ass goodbye lol) but I don't think you can realistically compare the two events. IMO.

What do you see here TM?



Particularly to the left extremity?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Apr 3 2012, 08:56 PM
Post #260





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 907
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Apr 1 2012, 06:56 PM) *
Hi TM,

I see a gradual destruction of a standard aircraft travelling at runway speed. The wheels are pulled away from underneath, the fuselage is dragging, slowing it down, a desintegration before the wings are shorn.

I know the aircraft frame is fragile (and an uncle of mine always said that if ever I heard the "brace, brace" call, the reason for it was really to kiss your ass goodbye lol) but I don't think you can realistically compare the two events. IMO.

What do you see here TM?



Particularly to the left extremity?



Actually, that's what i was referring to!

Look again in the video and see how the timber poles 'effortlessly' slice through the wing,

even with this "slow" speed of the plane!

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

16 Pages V  « < 11 12 13 14 15 > » 
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: 18th September 2014 - 05:38 AM