Edit by Rob Balsamo - I would like to make it clear that Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not endorse the No Plane Theory nor the article mentioned in the OP.

I personally have not read the article in detail, nor do i intend to. People are free to make their own choices.

Please keep in mind the disclaimer in white text at the top of the forum when reviewing this thread and the article referenced.

Thank you.


Dennis Cimino posted an article on Veterans Today earlier this week discussing the Pentagon attack and the unresolved issues within the FDR data.

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

Debunkers are already talking about it. I'd appreciate any responses to the comments below, to help me deal with a particularly loathsome GL on YouTube. (If not, I'm sure I can manage on my own...it'll just take a little bit longer ...)

If he knows what hes talking about, why does he insist the FDR recorder shows the plane flying just over the West Wing of the White House on its way to the Penty, when even the twoofies pilots admit it shows no such thing?

Why does Dennis the ignorant fux insist the plane was heading 180, made a 330 degree right hand turn, then impact at heading 070. I mean HONESTLY, you fuxing moron, before pretending someone is an expert. Before pretending somone knows what he is talkin gabout, dont you think its a good ideaq to find out if the idiot can do SIMPLE FUXING 3RD GRADE ARITHMETIC FIRST?!?!?!?!??!?!?!

I mean Jesus tittfuxing christ! Even the little drooler picture Dennis drew of the AA77 flight path doesnt even show a 270 degreee turn. Instantly noticeable to anyone not a complete idiot (like Goebbels is) Yet Dennis the Moron keeps insisting a less than 270 degreee turn was an exact 330 degree turn? LMGDAOOOO

Dennis the Moron debunks herself frequently. At one moment (supposedly disproving a claim that data can sit in a buffer for several seconds before being recorded) that the FAR requires the data to be accurately recorded at least once a second. Then dismisses the Radar Altimiter data that disproves the "380 above the light poles" lie due to a magic carpet that was following the plane around, remaining underneath the Radalt ant. making it read falsely low--AND then claiming the Radal data is (contrary to previous claims) ofte ntimes "in lag" by several seconds. Dennis the Moron cant even keep his story straight. No wonder anyone with the smallest SHRED of aviation and avionics knowledge long ago dismissed his bullshit.

feel free to email Dennis... i havent seen the article.

Check your PM's for his email addy.

What's the YT link MrM?

Oh, it's just Rkowens4's channel comments board.

http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4/feed?filter=1

By the time you get there, the discussion will have been bumped downwards and lost forever - just one of the lousy "improvements" to the new YT format

Also, a warning if you do bother checking it out - my potty mouth is fully engaged

Thanks pal. But I don't think it will be necessary...I just fly swatted the little disinfo merchant into a brick wall on my own. Fortunately, it doesn't require an expert to deal with duhbunkers of that calibre

Well, there are three studies in this series as follows:

"9/11: Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/91...d-video-fakery/

"9/11: The official account of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/91...d-video-fakery/

"The 9/11 Passenger Paradox: What happened to the passengers?"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/15/th...d-to-flight-93/

Let me suggest that, instead of emoting about how much we don't know and how smart you are, just
identify the claims we make, explain why we make them, and then provide the reasons you think we
are wrong. Since two of these planes were not even scheduled and the other two were not deregistered
until 28 September 2005, how can planes that were not in the air have crashed or planes that crashed
have still been in the air four years later? And, of course, as Pilots has shown, Flights 93 and 175 were
in the air, but Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time it was supposed to be crashing in Shanksville,
and Flight 175 was also in the air, but over Pittsburgh, PA, at the same time it was allegedly making an
effortless entry into the South Tower. So, unless you believe that the same plane can be in two places
at the same time, some kinds of video fakery have to have been employed in New York City on 9/11.

Thanks, Jim

For the record, this is how I ended up RESPONDING to the criticism I CTRL-C/CTRL-V'd from comments made by SOMEONE ELSE (that's why I italicised it) in the original post. Please, I would welcome any corrections if anyone feels they are warranted.

"Well played, Edge. Citing arguments that were never put forward in the article as a basis for criticising it. Where does Dennis claim anything about radar altimeter lag? Radio waves move at light speed; there is no lag associated with the radar altimeter reading. Where does Dennis say that there is? I just did an automated search in Microsoft Word - the term "lag" appears not once in the entire document. And where does Dennis state that a 330 degree turn with a starting point of 180 will result in a heading of 070? The plane's heading was 100 before making the 330 turn, with the indicator showing a new heading of...you guessed it: 070!!! Exactly who are YOU accusing of failing basic math? Why do you misquote and LIE about Cimino's statement about the position of the plane relative to the Whitehouse? Huh, Edge? Are you just HOPING that people will swallow your appalling disinfo without even READING the article? HTF can you look at yourself in the mirror?"

"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?

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?

I'm a litte bit surprised. Didn't Dennis cancel his appearance on Kevin Barrett's show in January and announced his "retiring from activism" because he is "frustrated" with those in the truth movement who are protecting the "Zionist perps"?

I'm not sure if this erratic behavior is helpful for the movement, and I can't understand how such an intelligent guy like Dennis seriously refers to the "research" of no-planer Gerard Holmgren, let alone the "the Mossad did it" theme. I'm completely with Webster Tarpley here - 9/11 was synthetic terror made in USA, and Israel played an observing role at most.

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.

Jim Fetzer

I wonder if it's possible you might help settle a bet I have at another site? Is it possible to say how much of that EXCELLENT article was written by Dennis, and how much by you?

I read it at VT, and it is one of the best articles I can remember reading. Fantastic analysis of the big picture regarding the Pentagon attack.

I'm going to check here if there is any sort of bio for Dennis Cimino. He must be former military, and I'm asssuming he does or has flown for one of the airlines.

Great job.

From your link Jim.









Subtle as a breezeblock. Interweaving Pilotsfor911Truth fact and evidence into NPT.
And you think that this "Hollywood op" would be "easier" than flying an aircraft into the towers? Nice disconnect from the possibility that the aircraft was modified to penetrate and explode.

Speculation, I know, but NPT has way too many loose ends.

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?

I think at this point Columbo usually spins on his heels and says.."just one more thing"

The documented ACARS data and the statements of those who ""translated" them for the FBI, coupled with the 175 flying way over its limitations and the refusal/denial of FDRs and "debris" identification are solid facts. To lump NTP baggage onto them is designed to weaken and distract. Just as the "A3 skyWarrior", missile and "NOC impact" baggage is an attempt to weaken the NOC witness testimonies.

4cents

Rob interviewed Dennis some time ago, during which his experience was touched upon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_1Dd2xZ8SQ

I don't have the facilities on this computer to listen again to the interview itself, but the video description states that Cimino is a "Flight Data Recorder Expert and Former Navy Combat Systems Specialist" - although I'm pretty sure a comprehensive version of his resume would go a lot further than that.

One debunker dismisses the fact that the NTSB animation shows a North of Citgo flight path as insignificant because those types of landmarks are drawn in by a graphic artist...



Now, I am sure that this has to be total bullshit, but I am unsure of how to prove it...

Any ideas?

The screenshot of the BTS database with the missing Fl77 data is a pretty subtle way to mention NPT. And this is no accident, but Idon't like to cite from private emails.

Frankly, I'm deeply disappotinted with Dennis. A serious researcher should stay away from Fetzer.
You have a new exotic theory concerning the WTC demolition? Go to Fetzer.
You have new evidence for video fakery? Go to Fetzer.
You have evidence that the Zionist perps did it? Go to Fetzer. You're welcome.

Must be the same "graphics problem" that NORAD had

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHjN4sfyqIc...be_gdata_player



Or National Geographic



Or the alleged last RADES datapoints



Alleged DME reading on FDR (alleged)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2kKAxIZNG8...be_gdata_player



And of course, these people

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o...be_gdata_player

I'm sure he'll say that they were "wrong", just like the JFK, TWA800 and Oklahoma witnesses.

Now, the official "data", I don't trust it (most don't show the Washington DC flightpath and the "loop" totally within the west of the Potomac River), but if this guy questions it all, he's also questioning the official version and if that's the case, aren't you/we right to demand an explanation?

If he mentions Stutt, tell him that his work is both flawed and irrelevant. It's not verified and has nothing to do with the OCT. It's an OCT subplot designed for govt loyalists to paper over the cracks

Hi woody,

There's an ambiguous line between NPT, "holograms" and "video fakery and planeswapping according to Jim Fetzer. Between a rational military type op that points to flyovers in Arlington and Shanksville and NPT.

I'd have to wait for Dennis' clarification before commenting.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

Mr Fetzer, do you wish to comment?

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.

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.

Wrong.

Read and learn.

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



If you "cite" our work, be sure to actually read our work. Start with the link above and note the dates.

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.

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.

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

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

(certainly it will throw the duhbunkers for a loop)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)...

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.

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 -

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.

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

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?

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.

guys, guys, we are on the same side here, ok?

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.

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?

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/

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.

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.