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 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Debunkers Respond To Dennis Cimino, A Few Comments Copy & Pasted

onesliceshort
post Mar 20 2012, 11:24 AM
Post #41



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (jimfetzer)
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.


See now that's the subtle wordplay I was referring to in an earlier post.

Taking two operations that involved military manouevres, plotted by on the ground investigators (CIT and Dom DiMaggio), what must have been mindnumbing meticulous dissection of the (bs) alleged FDR data by Pilotsfor911truth and then in the same sentence/breath, tacking on NPT in Manhattan as if they mutually compliment eachother. That's why they are most definitely a "different kettle of fish".

That Flight 175 flew well above its limitations and that ACARS contradicts the OCT doesn't lead to the natural conclusion of NPT.

And yes I have read your thread. I personally believe that the flash seen just before impact may have aided penetration. Couple that with the unknown factors of composition of the aircraft (TWA800 missile/drone which was designed to go through the target rather than explode on impact).

Yes, some of the videos and their anomalies I can't explain, but to build a theory around them that actually becomes a Frankenstein monster in magnitude and scope when somebody who has researched ops such as JFK and CIA modus operandi would know that these fucks like to keep it tight, confuses me.

I'm not going for the "disinfo agent" card that Dennis just pulled (people on this thread just wanted clarification AFAIK), I just want you guys to know that we don't have the luxury that govt loyalists have of being able to change and morph what the evidence that we can verify for ourselves shows. That's why every claim we make must have the "i" dotted and "t" crossed.

I'm in no way saying "you're with us or against us". Nobody can change anybody's mind. But you've just handed them another stick with which to beat this forum and CIT. It's their research. At least have the decency to consult with them before making life harder for them.


FYI Dennis, Duff posted an alleged video of a missile striking the Pentagon not so long ago. Obvious bullshit. A researcher here proved without a doubt that it was fake as hell. I informed and showed Duff the original footage it was taken from. He continued to post it while myself and others had to follow the multiple uploads on YT to let people know it was fake.

Just so you know.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 20 2012, 11:38 AM
Post #42



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,688
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 20 2012, 10:24 AM) *
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.


I found the email exchange I had with Jim regarding the article in the OP, it was on Feb 29.

Answers to your questions...

FROM:

Pilots For Truth

TO:

James Fetzer

Message flagged
Wednesday, February 29, 2012 3:59 PM

Jim, see my reply to your email regarding Vancouver below.... your questions in bold...

Rob,

OK. I want to quote you. Here are three questions I can quote your answers:

(1) Pilots has established that Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time that
it purportedly crashed in Shanksville. Is it Pilots' position that
Flight 93 was
BOTH over Urbana, IL, AND crashed in Shanksville, PA, AT THE SAME TIME?


Absolutely not. There isn't any evidence which has been provided by govt agencies that proves UAL93 crashed in Shanksville. In fact, all data and information provided by govt agencies conflicts with their story. We want to know why, others are free to speculate.

(2) PIlots has established that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time
it purportedly hit the South Tower. Is it Pilots' position that
Flight 175 was BOTH
over Pittsburgh, PA, AND hit the South Tower AT THE SAME TIME?


According to ACARS data and statements made by UAL Dispatchers, UAL175 was in the vicinity between MDT and PIT, PA during the events taking place in NYC at the South Tower. Since the aircraft observed to hit the South tower was flying at a speed impossible for a standard 767, combined with the numerous targets converging and then diverging from the alleged UA175 target prior to the impact, the govt has not proven that UA175, N612UA, caused the damage to the south tower. I[n] fact, the data provided conflicts with the govt story. For clarity, this does not mean that some other aircraft may [not] have caused the damage considering the aircraft observed to cause the damage has never been positively identified (nor any of the other 3 aircraft allegedly used on 9/11). When we say "Impossible speed", this does not mean the speeds are impossible for all aircraft.The speeds are impossible for a standard 767-200. The speeds reported are not impossible if the aircraft were modified. This is covered thoroughly in our presentation "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

(3) Pilots has established that the plane shown in NYC videos was flying faster
than a standard 767. Is it Pilots' position that the plane shown in
the videos was
BOTH a standard 767 AND also not a standard 767 AT THE SAME TIME?


See reply above.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
pilotsfor911truth.org
Full member list at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
Photos here http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 20 2012, 11:59 AM
Post #43





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



Why don't you actually read my studies and explain what I have wrong. Pulling this stuff out of the air is irresponsible and beyond ridiculous. If you think that Flight 175 having been airborne over Pittsburgh HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ALLEGED HIT ON THE SOUTH TOWER, something is wrong with your mind-housing group. Obviously, unless you believe that the same plane can be in two places at the same time, whatever was going on in New York City CANNOT HAVE INVOLVED THE SAME PLANE THAT WAS OVER PITTSBURGH AT THE TIME. As I explain in my studies, the term "video fakery" encompasses any use of video to convey a false impression of the events of 9/11. Kindly ACTUALLY READ my work before you dismiss it with the back of your hand. I have heretofore supposed that Pilots was a society of professionals who were serious about 9/11 research.

Now I am discovering that THEY DON'T EVEN BOTHER TO READ STUDIES BEFORE THEY DISMISS THEM. Just go to any of the three articles I have published about all of this, identify what I claim and why I claim it, and the explain what I have wrong. I hope it will not be on the order of the trivia that Rob has identified. I can easily correct the link to "Pandora's Black Box, Part 2" and I have already replaced the diagram of the approach to correspond with more recent work. I have also explained that his use of the term "theory" commits an obvious blunder, because that word can be used in the weak sense of a speculation, guess or rumor, but there is the stronger sense of an empirically testable explanatory hypothesis. Neither of us wants to deal with mere rumors or speculation. So if I or my co-authors have something wrong, SHOW WHAT WE HAVE WRONG AND WHY. OK?

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 20 2012, 10:24 AM) *
See now that's the subtle wordplay I was referring to in an earlier post.

Taking two operations that involved military manouevres, plotted by on the ground investigators (CIT and Dom DiMaggio), what must have been mindnumbing meticulous dissection of the (bs) alleged FDR data by Pilotsfor911truth and then in the same sentence/breath, tacking on NPT in Manhattan as if they mutually compliment eachother. That's why they are most definitely a "different kettle of fish".

That Flight 175 flew well above its limitations and that ACARS contradicts the OCT doesn't lead to the natural conclusion of NPT.

And yes I have read your thread. I personally believe that the flash seen just before impact may have aided penetration. Couple that with the unknown factors of composition of the aircraft (TWA800 missile/drone which was designed to go through the target rather than explode on impact).

Yes, some of the videos and their anomalies I can't explain, but to build a theory around them that actually becomes a Frankenstein monster in magnitude and scope when somebody who has researched ops such as JFK and CIA modus operandi would know that these fucks like to keep it tight, confuses me.

I'm not going for the "disinfo agent" card that Dennis just pulled (people on this thread just wanted clarification AFAIK), I just want you guys to know that we don't have the luxury that govt loyalists have of being able to change and morph what the evidence that we can verify for ourselves shows. That's why every claim we make must have the "i" dotted and "t" crossed.

I'm in no way saying "you're with us or against us". Nobody can change anybody's mind. But you've just handed them another stick with which to beat this forum and CIT. It's their research. At least have the decency to consult with them before making life harder for them.


FYI Dennis, Duff posted an alleged video of a missile striking the Pentagon not so long ago. Obvious bullshit. A researcher here proved without a doubt that it was fake as hell. I informed and showed Duff the original footage it was taken from. He continued to post it while myself and others had to follow the multiple uploads on YT to let people know it was fake.

Just so you know.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Mar 20 2012, 12:59 PM
Post #44



Group Icon

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



That you label the "mistaken" official flight path for "77" as "trivia" speaks volumes jim. It's defined within feet through the alleged directional damage from lightpoles 1 and 2 through to C Ring. It's defined through aerodynamics that it can't even begin to cause that damage from NOC. Nor over the Navy Annex.

Feet and inches! Hardly trivia.

I don't care about NPT (been there, done that, wised up) and I did read your pieces. You obviously skimmed over my post(s). You know exactly what I take issue with.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Mar 20 2012, 01:39 PM
Post #45





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



guys, guys, we are on the same side here, ok?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Mar 20 2012, 08:09 PM
Post #46





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Question about a plane's wing hitting light poles....

I would think that a large jet which somehow manages to fly low enough and fast enough to have its wing run into a series of light poles would knock the poles down not have the poles knock the wing off. The attachment of the wing is the strongest part of the plane and its more likely that the pole would damage the wing not rip it off. Is that true? If a pole ripped off the wing... the remaining ones in that line would neither rip off the wing as the first one did that. Or if the wing knocked the first pole down, it's likely to knock down the next few. No?

I am not arguing for a south pass... just curious about what the encounter of a wing and a row of light poles would do... to the poles and to the wing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Mar 20 2012, 10:11 PM
Post #47





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



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 18 2012, 09:56 AM) *
...I'd like to see where he actually mentions the "no planes" theory?

I've read the link

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/13/91...k-is-a-fantasy/

And don't see it mentioned anywhere.


I’m with Slice on this.

After scanning the article, paragraph by paragraph, I find nothing to convince me that Dennis subscribes to NPT.

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.

Admittedly, on a superficial level, there will be those who assume that just because Fetzer authored the pre-amble to Cimino’s 10,000 word article, that they both must therefore share a similar perspective on NPT. But shouldn’t we be focusing more on the content found within the article itself before arriving at that conclusion?

Veterans Today has a reputation by now for endorsing radical interpretations of the evidence relating to 9/11 - should that stop Dennis from publishing something alongside Fetzer without compromising his own integrity or credibility?

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? Was he afraid that Dennis might withdraw his approval from the article before its date of publication?

Also, none of the debunkers I’ve encountered over the past week have used NPT as cheap ammunition against Dennis or his article. In my experience, shills will always pounce on any chance to kookify Truthers by maligning them with wacky theories they’ve never actually endorsed themselves. This hasn't happened, so why should people who might otherwise be expected to support Dennis insist on building a strawman on his behalf? It doesn’t make any sense to me.

Woody Box argues that the “screenshot of the BTS database with the missing Fl77 data is a pretty subtle way to mention NPT.” We’ve since learned that none of the links, images or footage referenced in the article were chosen or approved by Dennis. So, how much further should we be reading between the lines?

I wish Dennis would just make a statement to clarify his position.

Dennis?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 21 2012, 01:05 AM
Post #48





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



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 21 2012, 01:14 AM
Post #49





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



Yes, Rob sent me this, which is a fine statement from Pilots. But some of us are using the evidence that Pilots and others have discovered to reconstruct what did and did not happen on 9/11. That is the purpose of my publications on these subjects, where I have given some references in my response to mrmitosis, who appears to be only one of those posting here would seems to be oblivious not only of my previous research on planes/no planes, video fakery and the Pentagon, but that of numerous others.

What I do not understand is why Pilots and Rob in particular should adopt such a condescending attitude toward those, like me, who are doing what we can to put the big picture together. As an illustration, I would encourage any of you to check out the new web site for The Vancouver Hearings, which will be held there from 15-17 June this year in an attempt to confront some of the most contentious issues dividing the 9/11 community in an effort to bridge the gap and bring this community closer together.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 20 2012, 10:38 AM) *
I found the email exchange I had with Jim regarding the article in the OP, it was on Feb 29.

Answers to your questions...

FROM:

Pilots For Truth

TO:

James Fetzer

Message flagged
Wednesday, February 29, 2012 3:59 PM

Jim, see my reply to your email regarding Vancouver below.... your questions in bold...

Rob,

OK. I want to quote you. Here are three questions I can quote your answers:

(1) Pilots has established that Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time that
it purportedly crashed in Shanksville. Is it Pilots' position that
Flight 93 was
BOTH over Urbana, IL, AND crashed in Shanksville, PA, AT THE SAME TIME?


Absolutely not. There isn't any evidence which has been provided by govt agencies that proves UAL93 crashed in Shanksville. In fact, all data and information provided by govt agencies conflicts with their story. We want to know why, others are free to speculate.

(2) PIlots has established that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time
it purportedly hit the South Tower. Is it Pilots' position that
Flight 175 was BOTH
over Pittsburgh, PA, AND hit the South Tower AT THE SAME TIME?


According to ACARS data and statements made by UAL Dispatchers, UAL175 was in the vicinity between MDT and PIT, PA during the events taking place in NYC at the South Tower. Since the aircraft observed to hit the South tower was flying at a speed impossible for a standard 767, combined with the numerous targets converging and then diverging from the alleged UA175 target prior to the impact, the govt has not proven that UA175, N612UA, caused the damage to the south tower. I[n] fact, the data provided conflicts with the govt story. For clarity, this does not mean that some other aircraft may [not] have caused the damage considering the aircraft observed to cause the damage has never been positively identified (nor any of the other 3 aircraft allegedly used on 9/11). When we say "Impossible speed", this does not mean the speeds are impossible for all aircraft.The speeds are impossible for a standard 767-200. The speeds reported are not impossible if the aircraft were modified. This is covered thoroughly in our presentation "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

(3) Pilots has established that the plane shown in NYC videos was flying faster
than a standard 767. Is it Pilots' position that the plane shown in
the videos was
BOTH a standard 767 AND also not a standard 767 AT THE SAME TIME?


See reply above.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
pilotsfor911truth.org
Full member list at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
Photos here http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 21 2012, 01:19 AM
Post #50





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



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.

QUOTE (Dennis Cimino @ Mar 20 2012, 01:28 AM) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 21 2012, 01:25 AM
Post #51





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




SanderO, you are joking, right? You don't know Newton's third law? The impact of a plane moving 500 mph with a stationary lamppost would be the same as that of a lamppost moving 500 mph hitting a stationary plane. We know what happens when a plane in flight impacts with a tiny bird weighing only a few ounces. It would have ripped the wing off, ignited the fuel, caused it to pivot violently and break off its tail, while done immense damage to the lawn. But none of that happened. Think about it.


QUOTE (SanderO @ Mar 20 2012, 07:09 PM) *
Question about a plane's wing hitting light poles....

I would think that a large jet which somehow manages to fly low enough and fast enough to have its wing run into a series of light poles would knock the poles down not have the poles knock the wing off. The attachment of the wing is the strongest part of the plane and its more likely that the pole would damage the wing not rip it off. Is that true? If a pole ripped off the wing... the remaining ones in that line would neither rip off the wing as the first one did that. Or if the wing knocked the first pole down, it's likely to knock down the next few. No?

I am not arguing for a south pass... just curious about what the encounter of a wing and a row of light poles would do... to the poles and to the wing.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Mar 21 2012, 02:01 AM
Post #52





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



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 12:05 AM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 21 2012, 04:19 AM
Post #53



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,688
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 01:19 AM) *
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.



Done. And I expect a retraction of the above veiled accusation when you return. Jim, you have done nothing here but attempt more divide within the so-called "movement", while providing ammunition for dishonest duhbunkers and Bloggers hired by the Pentagon.

Why didn't you ask Dennis for the original before making the above accusations?

Keep in mind, Dennis is free to post here, he did start the post himself, (two posts in fact) but apparently was having difficulty remembering how to use the Forum interface so he sent me the body via email asking me to publish it for him. It was posted in it's entirety with the exception of the first sentence in which my quick highlight cut off the first few words, "anyway, I hope that the guys understand that...". If you feel including those 8 words make the email "far longer and more detailed", thereby justifying your disappointment, then I guess you are entitled to your opinion. If you find those 8 words trivial, I expect a retraction. I will no longer copy/paste his emails for him. If he has something to say on this forum, he can post it himself. The interface isn't that difficult to figure out.

Jim, you are free to explore all the theories you wish. We do not endorse NPT. Please review the interview I did with John Lear posted to the last page. If you use our work in an attempt to support your theories, please inform your readers that Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not endorse NPT, or do not use our work at all in your articles.

Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 21 2012, 05:13 AM
Post #54



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,688
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Mar 21 2012, 02:01 AM) *
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.



Since Jim felt the need to share with others what Dennis allegedly "informed" him, I will share mine.

Dennis does not endorse the NPT.

He can come here and elaborate if he wishes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dennis Cimino
post Mar 21 2012, 06:52 AM
Post #55





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



Let me tell you a little story about a P-3 that was flat hatting at 250 knots down about twenty feet above the water, Sander. The pilot was breaking NATOPS rules by being down there going so fast, and then he had the misfortune of hitting a seagull with the starboard wing. The bird embedded into the wing seven feet deep and ruptured the fuel tank and grounded the plane for over a month. The mass of the seagull was significantly less than any of those poles.

I think it's rather disingenuous to state that the wing is so strong that the kind of damage I stated in my article is unrealistic. I'm not attacking you, I'm stating a fact. When a 'seagull' gets the equivalent mass of an aluminum lamp pole, then we'll discuss the further destruction of the wing. Now, I might want to tell you that this Lockheed airplane is mighty sturdy and is not made out of fiberglass or spruce. The bird nearly came out thru the flap well on this machine. Still want to debate the relative mass of the pole strikes and the ramifications of that? Be my guest. The story I just cited is true. It's ludicrous to state that a plane moving at this speed would NOT have ruptured wing fuel tanks from those hits.

QUOTE (SanderO @ Mar 21 2012, 01:09 AM) *
Question about a plane's wing hitting light poles....

I would think that a large jet which somehow manages to fly low enough and fast enough to have its wing run into a series of light poles would knock the poles down not have the poles knock the wing off. The attachment of the wing is the strongest part of the plane and its more likely that the pole would damage the wing not rip it off. Is that true? If a pole ripped off the wing... the remaining ones in that line would neither rip off the wing as the first one did that. Or if the wing knocked the first pole down, it's likely to knock down the next few. No?

I am not arguing for a south pass... just curious about what the encounter of a wing and a row of light poles would do... to the poles and to the wing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 21 2012, 10:07 AM
Post #56





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



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.

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 12:19 AM) *
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.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 21 2012, 10:18 AM
Post #57





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



The wrong link was (what we used to call) "a mistake". Thanks
for catching it. Here is the correct link to the Pentagon article:

"9/11: The official account of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/13/91...k-is-a-fantasy/


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?


This post has been edited by jfetzer: Mar 21 2012, 10:18 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 21 2012, 10:26 AM
Post #58





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



Actually, there is a lot of evidence of Israeli involvement. Christopher Bollyn has an on-line book about it. Alan Sabrosky has made many presentations and published many articles about it. Web sites such as rediscover911.com discuss it extensively.

I have several articles that discuss it, including "9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda", "Is 9/11 research 'anti-Semitic'?", and "The Sciene and Politics of 9/11: The Toronto Hearings". Just google "The Dancing Israelis" for one indication that is rather widely known.

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 18 2012, 09:56 AM) *
I don't think that Israeli involvement is in question personally and think he may be referring to those within the "truth movement" who pull out the "anti-semite card" whenever the dreaded "I" word is even mentioned but I'd like to see where he actually mentions the "no planes" theory?

I've read the link

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/13/91...k-is-a-fantasy/

And don't see it mentioned anywhere.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 21 2012, 10:30 AM
Post #59





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



While I have replied to this elsewhere, Dennis said he was going to have ask for a copy back from you (for whatever reason), so I simply moved the ball forward. Apparently, I was misinformed about it, which I have addressed in an earlier post. Sorry!

As for NPT, I can't imagine why Pilots WOULD NOT endorse no plane theory, at this point in time, unless Pilots either (1) does not know what the theory entails or (2) does not appreciate the depth and breath of the evidence that supports it. Check it out.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 21 2012, 03:19 AM) *
Done. And I expect a retraction of the above veiled accusation when you return. Jim, you have done nothing here but attempt more divide within the so-called "movement", while providing ammunition for dishonest duhbunkers and Bloggers hired by the Pentagon.

Why didn't you ask Dennis for the original before making the above accusations?

Keep in mind, Dennis is free to post here, he did start the post himself, (two posts in fact) but apparently was having difficulty remembering how to use the Forum interface so he sent me the body via email asking me to publish it for him. It was posted in it's entirety with the exception of the first sentence in which my quick highlight cut off the first few words, "anyway, I hope that the guys understand that...". If you feel including those 8 words make the email "far longer and more detailed", thereby justifying your disappointment, then I guess you are entitled to your opinion. If you find those 8 words trivial, I expect a retraction. I will no longer copy/paste his emails for him. If he has something to say on this forum, he can post it himself. The interface isn't that difficult to figure out.

Jim, you are free to explore all the theories you wish. We do not endorse NPT. Please review the interview I did with John Lear posted to the last page. If you use our work in an attempt to support your theories, please inform your readers that Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not endorse NPT, or do not use our work at all in your articles.

Thank you.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 21 2012, 10:43 AM
Post #60





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



I do not believe that NPT is cited or discussed in "The official account of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy". Am I mistaken? I would observe, however, that if no Boeing hit the Pentagon, even if one flew over it, that obviously supports "no planes" theory.

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Mar 17 2012, 10:50 PM) *
Also, I think it's disingenuous to reference Dennis' article for the purposes of leveraging NPT. There's nothing in there which lends support to that theory. At all. It's a misrepresentation of his argument.

Or perhaps I'm wrong. Do you have Dennis Cimino on record, stating that he subscribes to a No Planes version of events, Mr Fetzer?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

16 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th September 2014 - 05:54 PM