25 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

http://tinyurl.com/7ybjgfd

Dennis Cimino makes an extremely detailed analysis of Pentagon attack.

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 17 March 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

http://tinyurl.com/7ybjgfd

Dennis Cimino makes an extremely detailed analysis of Pentagon attack.

It’s good to see you got the hang of posting links, Babe Ruth.

First I will re-affirm what you already know:  for a great many reasons I am 100% of the conviction that 9/11 was a false flag attack perpetrated by U.S. and foreign sources.  Anything I say is not because I’m in denial, afraid of an answer or have a personal preference within bounds of the operation.

I will say, when it comes to the article, that experience has made me biased from the outset - Cimino and Fetzer, what a combination - the latter cannot be forgiven for his role in dividing the 9/11 Scholars group (but that’s another story).  Still, I tried to forget the authors and read every word.

So I get halfway through the article, and I’m thinking, “this must be old”, what with containing so many long-ago debunked claims.  Then I check the date and… it’s posted recently; this month.  So my question - why is Fetzer still pushing this disinformation?

One example: -

“neither the cockpit door opened”
“nor had the cockpit door opened to let them in”
“slid under the crack below the cockpit door to gain entry”

The FDR reads “0” for the cockpit door, not because it never opened, but because the parameter was not set to record.  One only need view the NTSB FDR report to understand.  If you scroll to pg.10, there is the heading, “Parameters Not Working or Unconfirmed”.  Beneath that heading on pg.13 is listed the parameter, “FLT DECK DOOR”.

There is further information about this available online - basically the early model 757 was not configured to record the cockpit door status whilst the later version was.  Flight 77 was the earlier model.

Even PfffT were forced to admit there is no evidence to prove this cockpit door claim.  Do I remember there was quite a fuss about it within the group… didn’t one of their members step-down or have a fall-out due to it?  Don’t quote me, I don’t remember exactly and can’t be bothered to check.  In the end it is another area where they embarrassed themselves and by association, damaged credibility of the truth movement.

The claim is flat out wrong, like a number of others in the article.

Babe Ruth, I know you have a critical eye when it comes to the government and big corporations.  It might be worth extending that to other areas which might be of obvious interest to counter intelligence efforts whose aims are just what we see in action here - divide and discredit.  We should be on the same side, but we also will end up divided because of these false claims.

Don’t believe everything you read, no matter where or whom it comes from.

Edited by Q24, 17 March 2012 - 11:13 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

On your last sentence, I accepted that axiom in my life decades ago.

My guess is that Cimino did most of that writing, not Fetzer.  I have read a fair amount of Fetzer's work, and communicated with him by email a few times, and this article does not seem to me to be that much in his style.  It would be interesting to know that.

I am very happy indeed to concede for the sake of discussion that the cabin door information is spurious, or at least irrelevant to the big picture.

Cimino's knowledge of weapons systems comes from very much study, or from real life experience in the US military.  I suspect the latter, but will try to investigate his biography.  So too, his knowledge of various ATC procedures, and the location and type of various radar installations suggests extensive experience in either the military or civilian aviation, probably both.

What are some of the other claims in the article which you see as flat out wrong?

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 18 March 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

I am very happy indeed to concede for the sake of discussion that the cabin door information is spurious, or at least irrelevant to the big picture.

If we are to talk about the big picture I wouldn’t dispute the message.  Well, except for the ‘no plane impact’ implications late on in the article.  But I can’t support promotion of the big picture on false premises – that is damaging to the credibility of 9/11 truth.  There is enough evidence for any objective person to conclude the false flag nature of the attack without the recycling of disproven claims.

Babe Ruth, on 18 March 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

Cimino's knowledge of weapons systems comes from very much study, or from real life experience in the US military.  I suspect the latter, but will try to investigate his biography.  So too, his knowledge of various ATC procedures, and the location and type of various radar installations suggests extensive experience in either the military or civilian aviation, probably both.

Thank you for the PM on that.

Babe Ruth, on 18 March 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

What are some of the other claims in the article which you see as flat out wrong?

I can’t be bothered to read it all again right now - maybe next week.

Let’s go with the picture: -



What is that?

Why is it in the article?

It is not connected to the text so far as I can see.

Is it an intentional Easter Egg to make 9/11 truth look stupid?

“Oh those clowns can’t even get the flight path correct”.

[frenat]

Some quick things I see that they got wrong (I think Fetzer is more involved than you may think)

• There is no Mode 4A, it is just mode 4.  I've never heard it referred to as "crypto Beacon Video".  The only reference to that phrase comes from this article.  Rather than being watched for all the time, it has to be specifically interrogated for each track.  As NORAD traditionally only looked for incoming threats at that time abd the Pentagon was not in restricted or prohibited airspace, I doubt anybody was looking for that.  Additionally, it is often not used at all over CONUS airspace.  There is not an automatic shootdown for failing a Mode 4 interrogation.
  
• There is no prohibited or restricted airspace over the Pentagon, it is in fact directly in the landing path of a major airport.
  
• If there is a radar site "directly underneath" the radar hole then it would not have had radar in that area.  Radar looks out, not up and has a minimum range to account for pulse length and return listening time.  If it is a long range system then it likely can not process any returns within 50 miles.
  
• the previous year's preparedness drill was not simulating an attack but an accidental crash (as it is in the direct landing path of a major airport).

Why do I think Fetzer is more involved (or at least endorses it)?  He has put the links to it and some other "studies" here
http://educationforu...opic=18909&st=0
and from previous communications with him on that site the flight deck door code, and restricted airspace mistakes are things he's gotten wrong before and refused to admit his errors.

Edited by frenat, 19 March 2012 - 12:14 AM.

[Babe Ruth]

Thank you for the input Frenat.  Fetzer tells me in an email yesterday that Cimino wrote 90% of the article, and Fetzer wrote the introduction.

Of course I don't know your qualifications regarding radar.  I have a working knowledge of it being a pilot, but that's it. Considering Cimino's qualifications, I'm going to have go with him at this point in time.

I do know that civilian-wise, the various modes in which a transponder works is labeled with letters, not numbers.  Mode A, Mode C, Mode S. etc.

Q

Obviously details are important, but the further back one moves his perspective, the less important the details become.  I see the notes about the cockpit door to be as relevant as the details about the so-called debris path.  Considering that we are dealing with FF, and that so much of it is "simulations", to borrow from Sky et al, who really cares about whether the door was opened or not?  

I don't know if you caught it, and I had not really been aware of it before, but Cimino's point that the presumed hijackers quickly turned off the transponders, and then some time later set both altimeters at the same time to the local setting absolutely reeks of simulation of the FDR data.  How absurd that 2 hijackers would simultaneously set the local altimeter setting when theirs was a visual attack upon a ground structure.  It is silly beyond belief.

As I understand it, having seen it before, the 'easter egg' you wonder about is an approximation of the aircraft ground track as represented by radar data provided by the government.

Considering that the radar systems were dealing with many simulation injects that day, that they were utterly spoofed, I find the radar data to be unreliable almost to the point of irrelevance.

[frenat]

Babe Ruth, on 19 March 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

Thank you for the input Frenat.  Fetzer tells me in an email yesterday that Cimino wrote 90% of the article, and Fetzer wrote the introduction.

Of course I don't know your qualifications regarding radar.  I have a working knowledge of it being a pilot, but that's it. Considering Cimino's qualifications, I'm going to have go with him at this point in time.

I do know that civilian-wise, the various modes in which a transponder works is labeled with letters, not numbers.  Mode A, Mode C, Mode S. etc.

So he puts his name prominently on it but doesn't verify the contents?  

I have 8 years working directly with military air to air and air to ground radar as an Air Battle Manager in the USAF.  
Currently unemployed until next week.
When I was flying civilian side I never heard the transponder referred to as Mode A but Mode 3 and 3C or just C.  Could be a regional thing though.  There is definitely NOT a 4A though and again it is often not in use in the CONUS and when in use has to be specifically reaquested.  Modes 1,2,and 3 are continually interrogated.

Edited by frenat, 19 March 2012 - 03:13 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

I love that Redneck Riviera there!    We go into the new joint ECP about once a month.  Used to go into PFN before it was closed.  Been to HEVVN  

I've probably got a few years on you, and back when Mode C first came out, a top-of-the line civilian transponder could be selected MODE A or MODE C, or C+A.  And I can remember a few times back in the 70's being told by the controller to 'stop Mode C squawk'.

Anyway, Cimino comes across as very well informed.  Nothing at all against you and your experience, but maybe we're talking semantics here, and not facts?

[frenat]

Babe Ruth, on 19 March 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

I love that Redneck Riviera there!    We go into the new joint ECP about once a month.  Used to go into PFN before it was closed.  Been to HEVVN  

I've probably got a few years on you, and back when Mode C first came out, a top-of-the line civilian transponder could be selected MODE A or MODE C, or C+A.  And I can remember a few times back in the 70's being told by the controller to 'stop Mode C squawk'.

Anyway, Cimino comes across as very well informed.  Nothing at all against you and your experience, but maybe we're talking semantics here, and not facts?

I stayed away from Panama City Beach as much as possible.  Too many tourists and tourist traps.  Panama City (not Beach, two separate cities) was a hole.  The beaches were much better on base or on Mexico Beach.  Thanks for reminding me I need to change my location though.  I didn't like how far away ECP was from the base.  An hour's drive to catch a puddle jumper that has to connect through Atlanta.  Sucked every time.

It may be semantics for mode 3/A.  It is NOT semantics for mode 4.  There is no 4A.  It is not semantics that it is not often used at all in CONUS.  It is NOT semantics that it has to be specifically requested and is not continually interrogated.  It is NOT semantics that it is not referred to as "crypto Beacon Video".  There is no video component to it at all.  It is simply a binary yes or no response.  It is NOT semantics for the rest of the list I posted
•There is no prohibited or restricted airspace over the Pentagon, it is in fact directly in the landing path of a major airport.

•If there is a radar site "directly underneath" the radar hole then it would not have had radar in that area. Radar looks out, not up and has a minimum range to account for pulse length and return listening time. If it is a long range system then it likely can not process any returns within 50 miles.

•the previous year's preparedness drill was not simulating an attack but an accidental crash (as it is in the direct landing path of a major airport).
That was just early in the article.  I couldn't stand to read the rest.

Edited by frenat, 19 March 2012 - 08:02 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

I'll pass on the radar stuff, because I'm not qualified.

Agree that there is no P space at Pentagon, but there is right next door at Casa Blanca, P-56, and the 2 structures are pretty darn close together.

Radar is microwave, and therefore much more directional than lower frequency stuff.  It looks out AND up (at some angle), or else it would miss too many targets.  And I've been told in days gone by that "radar coverage lost because you're right over the antenna".  Same limitations on the microwave used in cell phones--they are directional to some degree or another.

Perhaps if you had read the rest of the article, you might have come to the point where he describes in detail the differences between ordinary ATC radar and the unit that was on some ridgeline.

Yeah, Panama City Beach is not quite a slum, but it is low rent.  

[frenat]

Babe Ruth, on 19 March 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

I'll pass on the radar stuff, because I'm not qualified.

Agree that there is no P space at Pentagon, but there is right next door at Casa Blanca, P-56, and the 2 structures are pretty darn close together.

The White House is hardly right next door.  Glad you agree that there is no restricted or prohibited airspace over the Pentagon.  That renders that claim of the article false as well as the claim about an automatic shootdown.  There has never been an automatic shootdown over the White House either, not before or after 911.

Babe Ruth, on 19 March 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

Radar is microwave, and therefore much more directional than lower frequency stuff.  It looks out AND up (at some angle), or else it would miss too many targets.  And I've been told in days gone by that "radar coverage lost because you're right over the antenna".  Same limitations on the microwave used in cell phones--they are directional to some degree or another.

Perhaps if you had read the rest of the article, you might have come to the point where he describes in detail the differences between ordinary ATC radar and the unit that was on some ridgeline.

I know radar is directional.  That's how it works.  That is how we were able to track a vehicle on the ground from 150 miles away.  That is why there is a dead spot above it, as I said (meaning that radar site couldn't have seen it).  That invalidates the claim that the radar in the dead zone should have tracked it.  He also described it as a long range site.  That would make for a larger dead spot near the site due to pulse length and listening time.  The farther you want the radar to go (disregarding curve of the earth limitations) the longer you have to have a pause in transmitting to listen for the return.  You can't do both close in and long range with the same pulse.

[Babe Ruth]

You posted yesterday that you read only part of the article Frenat.

Now today you have already judged it, after having just admitted to not reading the bulk of it.  How does that make you look?

The point of the article is simple--that there was no 757 that crashed into the Pentagon, which is a true statement.

Yes, he was verbose, and yes probably too consumed in detail.  The article was too long I thought, and redundant.  But the CONCLUSION is right on.

As I mentioned to Q, who really cares whether the cockpit door was opened or closed.

The biggest point of the article to me was that the goofy guys who programmed the FDR had the altimeters set to local, simultaneously, after they had already turned off the transponder earlier.  That is obvious simulation, and reminds me of the Todd Beamer cellphone call: Hello Mom?  This is your son Todd Beamer"  

I mean really, the entire story is preposterous.

And with all due respect Frenat, until I meet and talk to both you and Cimino, I'm betting his knowledge of radar and such is superior to your knowledge of the same.  

[frenat]

Babe Ruth, on 21 March 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

You posted yesterday that you read only part of the article Frenat.

Now today you have already judged it, after having just admitted to not reading the bulk of it.  How does that make you look?

I've skimmed it.  I've read plenty of other stuff by Fetzer and never been impressed.  If they can get so much wrong in just the first bit, why should I waste my time finding the rest they got wrong?  How does that make me look?  Like someone who has dealt with Fetzer before.

Babe Ruth, on 21 March 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

The point of the article is simple--that there was no 757 that crashed into the Pentagon, which is a true statement.

In your opinion.  I find it preposterous that if your plan calls for a 757 to crash, a 757 goes missing, and the crash site is a tourist location to not just use the 757.

Babe Ruth, on 21 March 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

And with all due respect Frenat, until I meet and talk to both you and Cimino, I'm betting his knowledge of radar and such is superior to your knowledge of the same.  

And I bet it isn't.  He's still wrong about Mode 4A and still wrong about a radar site in the dead spot being able to pick up something right above it.  Those were his words.

[booNyzarC]

Babe Ruth, on 21 March 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

That is obvious simulation, and reminds me of the Todd Beamer cellphone call: Hello Mom?  This is your son Todd Beamer"  

I mean really, the entire story is preposterous.

Todd Beamer and the other passengers of Flight 93 were heroes.  Your disrespect of them is downright repulsive.

You can't even get the story right.

It wasn't Todd Beamer who used his full name, it was Mark Bingham, and as described by his mother he was noticeably rattled and distracted by the unfolding events.  Who wouldn't be rattled in that situation?  Just how many things do you think might have been going though his mind at that moment?  So what if he used his full name, it is easily explainable that his mouth was operating on autopilot while his mind was planning and anticipating the revolt.  Besides, do you honestly think his own mother wouldn't recognize if it was him?

Give me a break.  The phone call deniers are probably some of the most disgusting people in my mind.  These were the last words from these heroes, speaking to their loved ones for the last time, and you mock them?

[Czero 101]

booNyzarC, on 21 March 2012 - 04:21 AM, said:

Give me a break.  The phone call deniers are probably some of the most disgusting people in my mind.  These were the last words from these heroes, speaking to their loved ones for the last time, and you mock them?

Does it really surprise you, though, given his history and the ludicrous opinions he inflicts on us...?




Cz