For Consideration Purposes: "9/11 Pentagon Flight Recorder Fraud Revealed"?! Options

[iceni]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBIEMHWe7dE


For consideration purposes: "9/11 Pentagon Flight Recorder Fraud Revealed"?!

Dennis Cimino speaks out

[onesliceshort]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBIEMHWe7dE


For consideration purposes: "9/11 Pentagon Flight Recorder Fraud Revealed"?! 

Dennis Cimino speaks out

This was the old Dennis I remembered and respected. Up until the last few minutes.

The "lightpole damage", Lloyd England and the gatecam footage are his reasons to believe that "something" flew through the directional damage path. And he failed to mention the NOC witnesses.

It's incredible that Dennis has thrown his weight behind "video fakery" and holograms in Manhattan, which entails every single photo and video being "fake", yet the staging of a few poles around an area under construction is batshit crazy talk. That the cabby who he claims was struck by a lightpole denies to this day that he was anywhere near the area in question. And that the piss-poor gatecam footage is straight up!

As for the "projectile" claim..

I've also learned that Jim Fetzer showed the disinfo "missile" footage at the Vancouver Hearings. When I pointed out to him that even he admitted that it was a fake at Veterans Today 7 months ago he told me that he "forgot".

Here's the POS video in question

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLIfWD4T6ik

Here's the debunk that buried it posted in September 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzoUlajZVY0

Jim Fetzer
Aug 30 – 1:51 pm

A friend of mine, Mike Sparks, has informed me that the video footage of the missile strike is faked. I think Gordon’s article is an excellent summary overview and agree about Jesse’s show. But, even though it looks quite realistic and I believe that a missile was fired at the building–very much as the video suggests–this one is fake, which may lead many to infer that no missile hit the Pentagon. This is parallel to the retyping of Bush’s fitness report, which Dan Rather verified–word for work–with the CO who wrote it and the secretary who typed it. But it had been retyped with a newer font, which meant that the document was faked and many therefore inferred its content was false. This case is parallel.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t827508-2/

Quote:

I’m looking for the forum that had this. It was a woman that made the vid & did the CGI. The aerial footage of the Pentagon was from a DOJ publicity film. The woman admitted it was fake.

The DoD Stock Footage (no missile strike)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=95...otage&hl=en

Source

That footage is still being shown at VT.

Jim's reply

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/...s/#comment-7007

Jim Fetzer says:
June 25, 2012 at 9:09 am
You have me on this one, slice! I had forgotten that Mike had corrected me about it. It was the last item I added to my presentation in the belief that it was interesting enough to show. Some were impressed by it, but I am going to clarify that this appears to be fake. Thanks about this!

Nice work.

[onesliceshort]

Just a few days after admitting that the video was fake...

Well, if showing and sharing is “promoting”, he might have a point. As I have explained, the idea that a missile hit the Pentagon is out there. This looks like evidence that supports it. I do not believe I stated it was authentic, which I am not in the position to verify. But I would present it again under similar circumstances with greater emphasis on the point that I cannot vouch for its authenticity. But to try to turn this into a major offense reveals that this guy is willing to exaggerate and has no respect for those of us who are attempting to expose falsehoods and reveal truths.

Jim Fetzer

I'll leave it at that. I can't be arsed with this guy.

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

Nice stormfront link. He actually cited a white supremacist site. It should be obvious fetzer is an infiltrator by now.

And obviously cimino too. He slipped passed the sensors here unfortunately.

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Jun 30 2012, 08:18 PM

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

Rob, I hope you noticed that in the video he is represented as a pilotsfor911truth member.

[mrmitosis]

I guess Fetzer is still entitled to describe himself as a member, even if he has been relegated to the category of "Troll"

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

He continues to cite P4T's research and findings to support arguments which have been expressly and repeatedly rejected by Rob Balsamo:

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/2329/081/9_...Bamboozled.html

Jim Fetzer's "scholarship" is a joke. Any University of Minnesota graduate should think carefully before stating their educational history on their Curriculum Vitae.

[mrmitosis]

Rob, I hope you noticed that in the video he is represented as a pilotsfor911truth member.

Oh, sorry. I just realised you were referring to Cimino. Still, Fetzer is guilty of the same offence.

[amazed!]

Cimino & Fetzer have shown excellent analysis of the events of 11 September, it is the conclusion is that matters. They have done their civic duty, and done it well. So have many many others, and I thank them all for the work they have done.

Egos over powering reason.

Nitpicking each other over trivia is counterproductive to the overall goal, whatever it may be. We're talking about historical events, not necessarily the future of mankind. So why argue about trivia?

[onesliceshort]

Cimino & Fetzer have shown excellent analysis of the events of 11 September, it is the conclusion is that matters. They have done their civic duty, and done it well. So have many many others, and I thank them all for the work they have done.

Egos over powering reason.

Nitpicking each other over trivia is counterproductive to the overall goal, whatever it may be. We're talking about historical events, not necessarily the future of mankind. So why argue about trivia?

If you consider evidence of how the Pentagon op was carried out as "triva"...

I waded through an 800 post debate with Jim Fetzer on his "image fakery" crap and kept the discussion civil throughout.

I summed up the main flaws in what basically is a play on words here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21992

If you look at my first post here I said "[T]his was the old Dennis I remembered and respected. Up until the last few minutes." These guys may as well have taken a huge dump on all of the hard work done by Rob, Aldo and Craig (and Ligon).

Did you actually watch the so-called "missile" video?

I'm personally sick of it amazed. Maybe if it was your work and personal time being used as toilet paper, you'd take offence too.

[rob balsamo]

There are so many inaccuracies in the statements made by Dennis with respect to aviation/aeronautical knowledge, it's just laughable...

I especially like the part where he is looking for the pilot to "stand on the right rudder during climb" in a twin engine Jet. lmao.... i about fell off my chair laughing when I heard him make that statement. I just wish the video was better quality, it could be used for comic relief during recurrent training sessions. It felt more like a stand-up comedy act for pilots more than a technical presentation.

Pssst, Dennis, P-Factor does not exist on jets.

Dennis should stick to what he knows... electronics... and leave the aero-knowledge related statements to real jet pilots.


Yeah Aldo, not sure why they put our url on that video, considering Dennis "resigned" (for the third time). Then again, Dennis has flip-flopped over the years... so maybe now he wants back in again? dunno....

It's funny to hear him say "We" throughout his little speech when he knows damn well that he had nothing to do with many of the discrepancies - I - found. Perhaps that is why he appears so nervous with a dry mouth. Someone should have provided him with a glass of water...lol

[amazed!]

Here's a plan, let's focus on personalities only, and disregard evidence.

OSS, I am sympathetic to what you're saying regarding research done, and my 'plan' above is pure sarcasm, but the personal attacks all 'round are counterproductive to discovering the truth, that part we do not yet know.

I have read parts of both Cimino's and Fetzer's works. OF COURSE I don't agree with everything they say, but for the most part they raise many good issues and reveal things not considered before.

I say enough with all the ego battles.

[onesliceshort]

You keep saying that "personalities" are being attacked amazed. I don't get it. How do you counter a person's claims without using the names of those pushing them?

I don't hone in on people, just their arguments. But if the same person repeats the same faulty arguments (and I mean blatant dishonesty, not "grey areas"), how does one not appear to be attacking that person when the lies have to be constantly rebuked? Frank Legge and his crew come to mind.

The "missile" video (did you watch it?) is garbage. There's a video posted further debunking this obvious garbage. This "guy" knew it was garbage. He showed this garbage to others in the full knowledge that it was garbage. If it's garbage it's garbage. Now to save face he's trying to be enigmatic over the "validity" of this garbage.

It's garbage!

[onesliceshort]

I will say one thing though.

I think a lot of us are running on fumes lately.

[elreb]

I use the same exact brain that I use for WTC7…yet when I talk about the Pentagon…I get reduced to the level of a “SanderO”!

I simply just do not comprehend this?

[onesliceshort]

I use the same exact brain that I use for WTC7…yet when I talk about the Pentagon…I get reduced to the level of a “SanderO”!

I simply just do not comprehend this?

The difference is that you have no problem admitting when you're wrong. Even in the "heat of the moment". And that when you get used to your acidic wit, I know that nothing less than the truth is your aim.

As I said above, I think a lot of us are running on fumes. There are very few individuals taking on a lot of work in an area where the truth is very hard to pin down.

To claim that there was a missile involved in the Pentagon attack (for me personally) is like claiming that there were fires in the WTC7 lower floors without the smoke. There's no evidence for it.

What we do know is that the aircraft (more than likely modified) was completely off track. The missile theory is just an attempt to join the dots because there's a need to believe that something hit. To "solve" a 9/11 op.

[elreb]

I had heard that some odd “86” recordings were taken by the FBI and never released.

This is good police work at its best.

While we are on the subject, perhaps we could play good cop…bad cop?

I’ll start off slow and pick on the DOD.

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

I will say one thing though.

I think a lot of us are running on fumes lately.

Hey bro if you treat it like a life long hobby, u will be alright. Lol

Or take a vacation man. You've done more than a lot of American truth movement members combined.

[onesliceshort]

Hey bro if you treat it like a life long hobby, u will be alright. Lol

Or take a vacation man. You've done more than a lot of American truth movement members combined.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Cheers bro. Means a lot hearing it from you.

[amazed!]

You keep saying that "personalities" are being attacked amazed. I don't get it. How do you counter a person's claims without using the names of those pushing them?

I don't hone in on people, just their arguments. But if the same person repeats the same faulty arguments (and I mean blatant dishonesty, not "grey areas"), how does one not appear to be attacking that person when the lies have to be constantly rebuked? Frank Legge and his crew come to mind.

The "missile" video (did you watch it?) is garbage. There's a video posted further debunking this obvious garbage. This "guy" knew it was garbage. He showed this garbage to others in the full knowledge that it was garbage. If it's garbage it's garbage. Now to save face he's trying to be enigmatic over the "validity" of this garbage.

It's garbage!

Good questions. I probably should have used 'persons' instead of 'personalities'.

Point is this: whether Cimino or Fetzer or a long list of other individuals, it seems to be almost standard practice that, if Person A makes a statement or issues a paper of some sort, and that statement or paper contains an error or incorrect statement, then more often than not, Person A will be attacked and villified by SOMEBODY claiming to be the Absolute Authority On Truth.

Perhaps I'm exaggerating a bit, but not much. An example is the map published as a part of Cimino's paper a few months back.

A frigging map, containing several or just one tiny area, is held up to villify the man. Turns him into a regular Judas Ascariot, overnight, by men claiming to be searching for the truth.

Is our understanding of what happened that day so fooking insecure and juvenile that we are ready to hang a man because he presented a map with the wrong scale on it? Are we so incapable of viewing the big picture that we go to war over a fooking map scale? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

I don't know the answer, but it sure looks that way to me.

[onesliceshort]

Now who's exaggerating?

The issue goes way deeper than posting the wrong map (even though the map posted was very close to what was actually witnessed versus the official path it was actually claimed to be).

Fetzer was, and still is, trying to tack NPT on to solid research by playing on words.

He started a thread at Veterans Today attacking Rob where the posters there are mumbling "disinfo" about this forum.

Dennis' presentation was a smack in the face to the NOC witnesses even though they are referenced in Fetzer's "newspeak" articles which include a flyover at the Pentagon but this second plane crap that nobody saw is tagged on to it. Did you watch that video amazed? If you still think that's "trivial" and I'm claiming to be the "Absolute Authority on Truth" for pointing that out, you're the one taking this personally for whatever reasons I can't fathom.