The 9/11 Forum

[Heretic76]

http://tinyurl.com/7ybjgfd

Dennis Cimino fills in the big picture regarding the Pentagon attack. It is a lengthy article, but very well informed and thought provoking.

[Oystein]

http://tinyurl.com/7ybjgfd

Dennis Cimino fills in the big picture regarding the Pentagon attack. It is a lengthy article, but very well informed and thought provoking.

I'll give this one reply. For obvious reasons, I hold plane deniers in extremely low regard.

First, it would have been nice if you had mentioned that Jim Fetzer is in on this, too, and that this piece was posted at veteranstoday.com.

Let me now comment on this introductory paragraph by

On September 11, 2001, we were told by the U.S. government [1] that at 9:38 a.m. on that day, a Boeing 757 jetliner impacted the building at a speed of approximately 465 knots after executing a 330 degree turn for no apparent reason any sane person can think of [2], as the building is highly distinguishable from virtually any altitude above 2000 feet for several miles [3]. The official story has the flight path just to the side of the west wing of the White House, which in any person’s estimation is a significantly more important target [4] than is the building that houses the military managers who run the Military Industrial Complex. We were also told that nobody could have foreseen this type of attack, even though just a year earlier, a drill was held, and a nearly identical B-757 American Airlines plane was flown by Chuck Burlingame himself, as the Pentagon ran a preparedness drill to simulate such an attack [5].

Numbers in square brackets added by me

Lie [1] - No, on 9/11 we weren't told by "the government" that it was a UA B757. It was first eye witnesses on the ground, interviewed by reporters of several private media corporations, from whom we learned that it was a UA plane, and some identified the type, Boeing 757. Later it was confirmed not just by agencies of "the government" but also by United Airlines, a private corporation, that they lost their plane and its passengers in the Pentagon

Lie [2] - Many sane people can think of a good reason. At any rate, Hanjour, a shaky pilot as Truthers like to point out, controlled altitude manually and simply came in too high. Hee cooked off altitude while being easily within sight of the Penatgon. It is exactly what I would do if I wanted to crash into the Pentagon and had came in too high. So the answer any sane person can give is simple: Incompetence at piloting forced Hanjour to loop once.

Lie [3] - The Pentagon is indeed easily discernable - when you are circling overhead. But if you fly in low enough to fly straight into it at full speed, your viewing angle may be too low to be sure. In fact, I once tried on a flight simulator to fly in from the east and crash into the Pentagon - by the time I saw the Pentagon, it was too late to push the nose down and fly in straight. I had to circle just like Hanjour (and had then no trouble hitting the wall).

Lie [4] - The White House would not have been a good target - it is simply much too small and thus much more difficult to hit than the Pentagon or the Capitol building. Compare the three, and you'll immediately know what I mean:



White House, Capitol and Pentagon satellite images next to each other for size comparison

WhitehouseCapitolPentagon.jpg (56.61 KiB) Viewed 618 times

Lie [5] - That drill was not to prepare for an attack but rather an accident. You see, the Pentagon is almost in line with the runway of an airport that's only just over a kilometer away. See: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=38 ... 6&t=k&z=15


So with Cimimo distorting, lying and luring you towards sensationalist suspicions like that 5 times in just one paragraph, why should anybody read on?

[Heretic76]

Oy vey!

What an UNpersuasive post. As usual, attack the persons and ignore the points.

[Oystein]

Let's see...

In [1] I mention no person. Instead, I address a claim and explain why I think it is false
In [2] I mention no person except myself. Instead, I address a claim and explain why I think it is false
In [3] I mention no person except myself. Instead, I address a claim and explain why I think it is false
In [4] I mention no person. Instead, I address a claim and explain why I think it is false
In [5] I mention no person. Instead, I address a claim and explain why I think it is false

In each case, it is easy to figure out that Cimino's claim is wrong. The mere density of false claims, and the ease with which they are refuted, leads me to believe that Cimino is less than truthful, and ought to know he is. I charitably assume that he DID research the things he writes about. Maybe he doesn't lie. Maybe he simply doesn't inform himself.

Oy vey.

[ozeco41]

Oy vey!

What an UNpersuasive post. As usual, attack the persons and ignore the points.

You must be seeing a different post to what I can see.

[Oystein]

Even Rob Balsamo of P4T denounces that crap:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/inde ... ry10804156

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.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/inde ... ry10804173

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.

Hilarious.

[Heretic76]

Oy vey!

What an UNpersuasive post. As usual, attack the persons and ignore the points.

You must be seeing a different post to what I can see.

Good to know you can see the post. I wonder what your analysis of the post you saw is?

I wonder if you are an airplane pilot, and if so, what experience you might have.

Cimino claims to hold 2 patents regarding Doppler radar, and from what I can read, that would be likely true.

[ozeco41]

Oy vey!

What an UNpersuasive post. As usual, attack the persons and ignore the points.

You must be seeing a different post to what I can see.

Good to know you can see the post. I wonder what your analysis of the post you saw is?

I wonder if you are an airplane pilot, and if so, what experience you might have.

Cimino claims to hold 2 patents regarding Doppler radar, and from what I can read, that would be likely true.

Let me respond in a different sequence:
"I wonder if you are an airplane pilot, and if so, what experience you might have." Not a pilot but long term low level hobby interest in Air Traffic management - I lived under the circuit for the Bankstown General Aviation field in south west Sydney. Regularly took light aircraft flights with friends and routinely monitored the ATC radio channels. So "slightly more understanding than the average lay person". Professional background is Civil/Structural engineering plus Military Engineer with demolitions training. My focus of interest in 9/11 matters arose out of the alignment of my professional expertise with what was needed to understand the WTC Twin Towers collapses so that I could explain what happened to lay person sceptics and a few "genuine truthers".

I was active for some years on the Richard Dawkins forum, the leading exponent of WTC Twin Towers collapse matters and spent a couple of years as moderator of the section. Recently - last two years - I have engaged in a moderate level of activity on JREF and a few posts here.

My primary interest in 9/11 technical issues is WTC collapses. I have a reasonable grasp of the Pentagon and Shanksville events and the range of polarised discussion which has taken place. I regard "no plane" and "shootdown" claims as ridiculous based on the weight of contrary evidence and the lack of any reasoned supportable argument against the accepted position. i.e. the same position as I hold on WTC collapses.

"Good to know you can see the post. I wonder what your analysis of the post you saw is?"
Referring to the post by Oystein my first impression was that it was a carefully considered and objective counter to the portion of the Cimino paper that Oystein quoted. I noted the use of the word "lie" and judged it as probably acceptable in the context.

I then went to the source which you had linked without comment as to what aspects of the source you wanted to pursue.

The first two paragraphs were all that I could be bothered to read. The article is dated 13th March 2012. Note 2012 not 2003-4-5-6!

Both paragraphs are little more than a string of false claims which have been effectively answered many times. For most of them I am aware of the true situation where the claim is false and am aware of the answers that have been given. So I cast the article into the class of "just another one of the same old crap".

Which changes the burden of responsibility. Since my initial reaction was strongly negative I found nothing to support your statement:

...It is a lengthy article, but very well informed and thought provoking.

I was convinced as to "lengthy article" but not at all persuaded that it would be "very well informed" OR "thought provoking".

On the basis of what I read my only thought was "why should I read the rubbish that these people dishonestly publish?" So, if I missed something thought provoking, it must be later in the article and it is back to you to identify it and state why I should be interested.

So I returned to a more in depth analysis of Oystein's post. I saw that it was of the clarity and objectiveness which I associate with Oystein's writing.

He identified in only one paragraph 5 points which he showed to be untruthful. I accept his conclusions about "untruthful" so, if you have a different view it would be over to you to demonstrate "truth."

Oystein labelled each one as a "lie". We see different requirements imposed or expected in using that term. Pedantically to be a lie it has to be (1) Untrue AND (2) represented as "true" by a person who knows it to be "untrue". At this point people vary in what they accept. There can be little doubt that in 2012 Cimino would be aware that the weight of evidence is against him on these five points. I will leave the discussion of the finer points of ethics at this stage.

So in summary, my analysis of Oystein's post was:
A) that it objectively restated the evidence which has been available for a long time and which shows that Cimino's claims are false: AND
B) I noted the use of the words "lie" and did not judge it to be unacceptable to me in the context where it was used.

So, overall, I supported Oystein's conclusion:

...So with Cimimo distorting, lying and luring you towards sensationalist suspicions like that 5 times in just one paragraph, why should anybody read on?

...and his "...why should anybody read on?" is the identical conclusion that I reached for myself.

Then came your post:

...t an UNpersuasive post. As usual, attack the persons and ignore the points.

...which caused me to suggest that you were not seeing the post I was seeing.

Why? In reverse order:
"..attack the persons and ignore the points" I cannot see any personal attack. As a former moderator accustomed to applying the rule "attack the post not the poster" I saw that Oystein had separated post from poster.
"As usual.." becomes a moot point since the subject is not proven. BUT I am unaware of any other examples which could be used to support the claim of common usage.
"an UNpersuasive post"...I don't share your opinion. however in many ways the post was redundant. Nothing I see in Cimino's article warrants attention so there is no need for me to be persuaded.

Which puts the issue back with you if you wish to follow up your claim that "It is a lengthy article, but very well informed and thought provoking."

As for your final point:
"Cimino claims to hold 2 patents regarding Doppler radar, and from what I can read, that would be likely true." I don't see the relevance.

[Heretic76]

Ozeco

Thanks for a civil reply. When on R & R in Sydney back in 1971, I rented an airplane and flew out of Bankstown. It was fun, and I positively loved Sydney. Stayed in King's Cross and had alot of fun.

I've not visited JREF but have heard it mentioned many times. Not familiar with Dawkins' website/forum, but have heard the name mentioned. Not being an engineer, I cannot make very many informed statements regarding the collapses, but it seems the presence of hotspots and molten metal make it quite clear that the official explanation is fraudulent.

That you are astonished that someone publishing in 2012 rather than earlier suggests you are under the impression that nothing new has been discovered since 2006? Maybe I mistinterpret your post in that regard.

For the record, the first 2 paragraphs were written by Jim Fetzer, not Cimino. Had you managed to make it through the entire article, especially with your engineering background and interest in ATC and aviation in general, you might have come away with a different impression than the 1 you have. Cimino is an electrical engineer, Fetzer is not. Cimino is also a specialist in Flight Data Recorder systems, and a large part of his paper is about that as it relates to the FDR we are told came from 77.

Cimino is also an expert in millimeter wave radar and countermeasures, having served in the US Navy as a combat systems specialist. There he also worked in radar, ECM and cryptographic communications. Fetzer did not. Cimino holds, or was involved in, 2 patents in the Doppler radar field. That you do not see the relevance of that fits in perfectly with your not having read his paper.

So, for this pilot, Cimino's paper was most informative and credible, for parts of it overlapped with and confirmed things I already knew from 40 years in the aviation business.

And speaking of rubbish that people dishonestly post, you have fairly well described what I have seen so far of Oystein's posts here regarding the aviation aspects of the events of 11 September. He does a fine job of regurgitating the Official Conspiracy Theory, but I have a parrot that can do the same, given sufficient repetition of the story.

So, with your experience as a moderator in the cyber world, it would seem you would AT LEAST read any piece you intended to critique. It is good that you are honest enough to admit you did not read the piece, but really, it seems we have more of the same. Cimino is crucified for some unknown personal reason, or perhaps the 2 lead paragraphs written by another man, and the substance of his analysis of the FDR and various ATC protocols and radar analysis is not discussed.

Yes, welcome to the bizarro and pseudo-intellectual internet!

[SanderO]

Heretic,

*Fraudulent* is a term which carries with it quite s distinct meaning:

"In criminal law, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent."

I do not accept parts of the official account of 911. There appears to have been some level of cover up or failure to uncover and expose what they could have and should have in the official investigations and accounting. In the immediate aftermath the spin doctors were already leading the people down a political path and there was virtually no serious forensic or engineering analysis. You had people like Peter Jennings from ABC stating it looked to him like a controlled demolition of a building.

When NIST and FEMA and the 911 Commission got to it, the nation had already adopted a post 911 outlook and was gearing up and fight the GWOT. It appears to me that the official reports of NIST and FEMA were meant to support the policies in place. NIST produced some shabby work and some excellent work too. But it appears to have failed to describe what actually happened. We were already pursuing the culprits and it was simply not possible to stop, or reverse course.

It is my belief that NIST et al effectively covered up at least some of the liability and negligence of the designers, engineers, PANYNJ, DOB and contractors who pushed through some very innovative but seemingly vulnerable and in hindsight questionable structural designs.

How insane was it to build a skyscraper spanning over a huge electrical substation its core supported by 3 massive transfer trusses? Very! How insane was it to build an extremely light weight structure with rather *flimsy* floor systems made 42% weaker from the get go which played a key role in lateral bracing of the facade and the core? Very. Both designs were disasters waiting to happen if the right set of circumstances presented. And they did. And we saw the results... the 3 building fell like a house of cards... a row of dominos.

The extreme heat signature is noteworthy and perhaps unexpected. Where all that heat came from and how it ended up at the bottom of the piles insulated by 100s of thousands of tons of grit and debris needs to be explained. You certainly can't crush, pulverize and rip apart 400,000 tons of materials in 15 seconds without having heat released. Mechanical destruction of materials produce heat. This is a calculation for physicists not architects or engineers. The presumption that the heat signature was the fingerprint of incendiaries or explosives is understandable and why truthers point to the heat detected in the NASA infrared imaging as a smoking gun.

The liquid metal seen pouring from the NE corner of the the South tower is also cited a being molten iron and office fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel. That's true. But it likely wasn't molten steel or iron but another metal which melts at much lower temps... such as lead copper or aluminum. Identifying the metal from the uncontrolled videos is completely unreliable. Under certain conditions pouring water in early morning or even sun can appear golden as well. It's simply optical and atmospheric effects. I don't think you could convince a scientist that the material pouring from the towers was molten iron from those videos. And the nagging question presents why only one corner, one floor of the 3 towers? What has so special about that corner aside from the fact that it appears to be where a jet engine excited the south tower... and an engine is attached to the wing which contain fuel tanks. There were also reportedly tons of lead acid back up batteries at the precise location. It seems to me that this certainly needs to be explained, but it is not a smoking gun for incendiaries.

My sense is that NIST was not so much as incompetent, although their flawed work may amount to incompetence in some cases, but more trying to let sleeping dogs lie and not raise a storm about structural flaws in the towers and the decisions which lead to making them. I see this no different from the blue line of silence for the police in protecting their own, or doctors who will not testify against another doctor, or any professional who will remain silent to protect their "profession". Three thousand people lost their lives and they wanted to find no one on this side of the Atlantic as being culpable in any manner whatsoever. Hence what amount to the emperor's new clothes lies we have come to know as the official explanation.

Covering up crimes is criminal but it may not be a fraud.

[ozeco41]

Ozeco

Thanks for a civil reply. When on R & R in Sydney back in 1971, I rented an airplane and flew out of Bankstown. It was fun, and I positively loved Sydney. Stayed in King's Cross and had alot of fun....

Bankstown is a very busy General Aviation field - one of the busiest. It has three main runways on 11-27 orientation using 11R 27L for training, 11L 27R for arrivals and departures plus overflow from either going to 11 centre/27 centre. My house right under the turn off base for a 27 training circuit. The airspace limited under the step downs for Sydney Kingsford Smith traffic. Saw a couple of big Air shows some years back. One they ran on 15 minute time slices shutting down bits of Sydney airspace in alternate 15 minute slices. The most interesting ATC request I heard on the day was "Bankstown Tower, Australian 567 requesting one further low pass from the west departing vertically for flight level 200!" Yes he plugged in the afterburner.

...I've not visited JREF but have heard it mentioned many times. Not familiar with Dawkins' website/forum, but have heard the name mentioned. Not being an engineer, I cannot make very many informed statements regarding the collapses, but it seems the presence of hotspots and molten metal make it quite clear that the official explanation is fraudulent....

JREF is a very wide ranging forum. It dates from about 2006 - the start of the boom in Internet forums. I've only been involved in the medium since late 2007. JREF has a separate sub-forum for conspiracy theories and a sub-sub-forum for 9/11 matters. Reason for the 9/11 separation was allegedly to keep all the "woo" locked up in one place so it didn't contaminate the more reasonable areas of the forum.

The Richard Dawkins forum was set up on Dawkins behalf to assist his role as a communicator of science. Naturally it has a lot of evolutionary biology material and the "conspiracy style" debates were mainly with creationists or about creationism. That forum had only one thread for 9/11 matters under the OP "WTC Towers collapse - Demolition or Not?" (my words but it summarises the topic) I first posted in that thread Nov 2007, the only admitted engineer posting, and I effectively dominated the WTC 9/11 debate. So much that I was asked to moderate the Politics and Current Affairs sub forum which included The WTC Collapse thread. that continued through till 2010 when the forum was closed. Many of the dispossessed members set up a new forum "Rationalskepticism" and I posted there for a while.

An observation relevant to the Dawkins site - the dynamic of Evolution v Creation discussion has been the same as 9/11 Technical discussion. i.e. started in 2006, 2 or 3 years intense discussion until all the real issues dealt with. From there regurgitation which has a different dynamic plus boredom.

9/11 discussion on JREF is certainly at the boredom stage with no really new and significant material being discussed.

well those are the preliminaries. Now to move onto some of the more substantial material of your post. First a bit of a disclaimer to save me repeating the same process points. Be aware that I am dual qualified - Engineering 1960's and Law 2005. I note that in a lot of your points your logic is somewhat loose. Let me illustrate with this first point:

...That you are astonished that someone publishing in 2012 rather than earlier suggests you are under the impression that nothing new has been discovered since 2006? Maybe I mistinterpret your post in that regard....

The reason for my "astonishment" is not related to your claim that nothing new has been discovered. The claims made in the paragraphs I commented on are not new claims. The answers to those claims are not new. And, if there has been new material discovered It has not come to my attention as being of any significance.

For this first point only let me enlarge with an example. There were claims made for CD of the WTC towers and those claims have been shown to be false to my satisfaction since late 2007. So that sets the base point for me. Jones introduced the claim that thermxte in some form had been used in CD. Now that was a "new discovery" and it has been discussed at length. However no one has shown that CD was plausible using any form of thermXte. Recently a groups of JREF members have engaged a scientist to test the validity of Jones work - they have found no thermXte and the alleged by Jones et al thermXte material was primer paint. More "new discoveries".

Now I give those not to divert into debate as to whether they are true or not. I use them as examples of logic. Nothing about those "new discoveries" has impacted in any way on the fact known by me since 2007 that there was no CD of the Twin Towers. Make sure you "get" the point. I am not arguing whether or not I am correct on "No CD". The logical reality is that the later discoveries do not affect my 2007 findings either way whether I be right or wrong.

So if we can understand/take on board that distinction between logical process and content of new discoveries we can proceed.

The first question I ask when reading any paper or watching a video is "what is the central point or message this person wants to communicate to me?" Until I am aware of the central thesis I cannot process all the details I read and therefore cannot classify those details in order of relevance or check the structure of logic that the author is putting to me.

The opening paragraph leads with concerns about "...the on-going controversy over whether the absence of evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon..." - well sorry, but there is no controversy of fact. That plane did hit the Pentagon. And the claim that it did not hit the Pentagon is not "new discoveries" that I need to read the article to comprehend. But the issue of fact is not the controversy. It is "...should or should not be publicized within the movement..." (my emphasis) So it is internal politics about some fringe elements of the truth movement AND based on a premise which is at least dubious if not outright untrue.

I am not involved in conflict between denominations of the truth movement so why is the following article of interest to me? And it leads off with a known and well debated false claim from one sector of the truth movement. AND to make it worse it looks like I am about to be reading no-planers material but the authors style of confused writing makes it hard to be sure at this stage.

So I do some skip reading and quickly spot a few gems:
End paragraph 2

“official account” is a fantasy, where the American public would benefit from knowing that even the Pentagon attack was a fabrication and a fraud.

Main Heading Cimino's paper:

The Pentagon attack is a fantasy

Middle para 4

could have been intercepted and at the very least, temporarily deflected off course if not shot down,

So do we have a "no planer"? And all the "shoot down" material. None of it looks new - why should I read further?

What is his theme? what are the key points he wants to make? So far all I am seeing is an unstructured mish mash of many old hat items.

(Let me pause here - this missive is turning into an epic - and I"v only set the context so far.. )

[Heretic76]

Sander

For the most part you and I are in agreement. Indeed, your points above are well taken, and your point about how insane it was to build WTC 7 thusly tend to reinforce the idea that fraud was playing during that design and construction.

Further, fraud is further suggested when one considers that Mayor Giuliani fought the City Council for years so that the EOC would be placed in that building. How insane is that, and what motivated him to do that? The council wanted to build it elsewhere, but Rudy insisted, and they eventually acquiesed. There is a reason for his insistence, and I will go out on a limb and suggest that somehow, in some way, fraud and prior planning for the events of the day were involved.

Liquid metal flowing out is not so much of a concern for me, though it is interesting to consider. The liquid metal that interests me more is that puddled up in the bowels of the building, and in some places described by firemen as "looking like a foundry."

Fraud, deception, prior planning--I would rather not make it about semantics.

[Heretic76]

Ozeco

I do appreciate your civil and precise posting style. I understand your 'ground rules' if I may use that term.

I guess the big difference between me and you, as one might expect, is our life experiences, Bankstown Airport notwithstanding.

I've done a career in aviation. No airlines--never wanted to. ROTC in college and a short period in the US Army, helicopter ambulance. Flight instructing, charter flying and crop dusting all mixed in. I've been involved in a few minor crashes myself, and visited the scene of many, both on the ground and from the air. Military and civilian.

So, what you accept as undeniable fact--that a 757 crashed at the Pentagon--is an illusion from my life experiences and knowledge. I strongly believe that SOMETHING stuck the Pentagon that day, but from all available evidence shown to the public, it was NOT a 757.

Thus Cimino's claim that it is a fantasy is getting pretty close to the truth. I would say perhaps a better word, all things considered, would be 'simulation'. As you know, that is quite a popular term and practice for those who defend the government story.

[ozeco41]

...I guess the big difference between me and you, as one might expect, is our life experiences, Bankstown Airport notwithstanding.

I've done a career in aviation. No airlines--never wanted to. ROTC in college and a short period in the US Army, helicopter ambulance. Flight instructing, charter flying and crop dusting all mixed in. I've been involved in a few minor crashes myself, and visited the scene of many, both on the ground and from the air. Military and civilian....

Understood. now the difference in our positions will probably be that you subjectively look at the situation, process those parts which align with your "life experience" and reach conclusions that something could be or could not be. And you then disregard all the other evidence by some mechanism or other.

I come at this Pentagon issue another way and with two main differences of approach. (Interpose here I am not Pentagon expert - my focus of detailed understanding of 9/11 technical matters is Twin Towers collapses - as I said in an earlier post.)

Difference one is that I look to all the evidence outside that narrow portion of "pilots who know how to fly and related plane crash" - so the damage to Pentagon, the human remains DNA evidence and the big issue of the probability of all this evidence being faked. Leave it there at this stage for a preliminary scope definition.

Difference two is that I have read a significant quantity of claims from pilots and other air industry related folks and who oppose the "official story" whatever that may be. And I see wrong logic appearance consistently. And logic I can comprehend - that is why in my introductory post I made a strong point of separating the logic process from the content material. (Plus such precision goes with the lawyer side of my make up. )

So I can address your move to create a base of authority for yourself whilst discrediting my authority - your gentle "put down" of "I guess the big difference between me and you, as one might expect, is our life experiences,"

Yes it is true that we have big differences between our experiences. That does not make yours right and mine wrong, nor yours better for this situation of Pentagon and mine not appropriate. That remains to be seen if we progress this discussion further.

What is becoming clear to me is that the big difference is that you build your claims on subjective gut feelings based on experience. I tend to be cold bloodedly objective in the legal style. Recall my initial comment that much of your logic appeared to be loose. That is not intended as a personal put-down - rather as a starting point from which I could show examples of looseness and counter them with tighter versions. Those tighter versions either showing that your conclusions were on poor foundations or possible reversing some of the conclusions. Or showing that your conclusions were in fact accurate despite a "loose" bit of reasoning.

Again, whether this can be a profitable discussion remains to be seen. Either of us could decide to bail out.

So how do I deal with this claim ? :

...So, what you accept as undeniable fact--that a 757 crashed at the Pentagon--is an illusion from my life experiences and knowledge. I strongly believe that SOMETHING stuck the Pentagon that day, but from all available evidence shown to the public, it was NOT a 757.

Thus Cimino's claim that it is a fantasy is getting pretty close to the truth. I would say perhaps a better word, all things considered, would be 'simulation'. As you know, that is quite a popular term and practice for those who defend the government story.

well first I note that it is framed in the reversed logic style common to many "truther" claims. Viz:
Some bold claims not backed by evidence;
Followed by the implicit "you prove me wrong"
..which reverses the burden of proof AND imposes the requirement to "prove a negative".

My first response has to be "prove your claim" or a softer based equivalent "on what do you base those claims?" Because as it stands there is nothing I can address. Contrast with my approach to explaining WTC1 or WTC2 collapses and my conclusion "No CD Needed; No CD performed." Sure I would probably state up front what my conclusion will be - that is simple a question of clear writing style "Tell 'em what you are going to tell 'em; tell 'em; tell 'em what you have told 'em". But in the content of my explanation I would set out every step of fact and related logic. Up front and open and to a standard that I was confident that I could support professionally. Recall that with WTC collapses I am in my own professional field - Civil, Structural AND Military Demolitions engineering.

My own conviction that the 757 did hit the pentagon is based on a wide range of issues. Let me start with a few which are routinely presented falsely:
The holes in the Pentagon. The impact hole on the outer face was of the size and shape that I, as an engineer not as a pilot, would expect. A main central hole for fuselage, extensions of that hole showing minor damage from wings and the outer extremes of that hole caused by engines. AND claims by "no-planers" which edit or selectively choose pictures which don't show the width of damage and which seem to show only the central fuselage hole. Why do those claiming "no plane" deliberately select misleading evidence to support their claim? So immediately we see witness credibility issues.

Pause there - the more general issue is that the truther side of the debate presents claims which are untruthful. For example the early collapse of the East Penthouse of WTC7 is a clear signal that the interior structure of WTC7 had failed (including Column79) leaving an empty shell of facades. Why do most truther uses of the collapse video clip off that early bit? So as an objective person examining evidence the credibility of the witnesses from the truth side is repeatedly cast in doubt due to demonstrated use of falsehoods.

And the response that the other side is just as dishonest is based on false logic. Apart from it being a "cut-throat defence" I am not discussing the "other side" I am considering the evidence. I am considering claims by "truthers". Dishonesty by opposing viewpoint holders only comes into play if I am listening to those opponents and taking their dishonest claims as factually true. (Or if I am being dishonest myself to cover that option. )

Let me illustrate this with another aside. From the outset of my postings explaining WTC1 and WTC2 collapses I rigorously avoided using NIST as an authority. Too many opponents in discussion kept getting the topic confused. I was discussing "Why WTCx collapsed" - not "was NIST wrong"? Another example of the precision of focus I try to maintain. (Despite this post wandering - I'm still dealing with preliminaries. )

Another claim to support "not the Plane at the Pentagon" is the exit hole shape allegedly not the shape a plane would make. This one right in my territory - engineering of impact dynamics. The hole is just the shape you would expect.

Another range of no-plane claims is that class of claims "no pilot could match the flight path" OR "no pilot would take that flight path" I won't attempt to present all the counter arguments - I won't fall for the truther trap issue of accepting burden of proof and rebutting by proof of negatives. BUT no one is asking a pilot to match that ridiculous flight path. The path is the path that was taken and the question is not "could a pilot match it?" rather "did it happen?"

Continuing my theme of how I would explain wTC1 or WTC2 collapse I would lay out the sequence of events which I claim happened together with an indication of the available proof evidence. Lay out the steps of logic. All so that anyone can test each specific claim of fact and step of logic.

That process is a big contrast with how most "truther" claims seem to be made.

Let me illustrate. This is NOT how I would present a WTC1/2 collapse claim:

So, what you accept as undeniable fact--that the WTC Twin towers fell as a result of aircraft impact damage and unfought fires - is an illusion from my life experiences and knowledge. I strongly believe that SOMEONE demolished the Twin Towers on that day, and from all available evidence shown to the public, it was NOT a result of fire damage alone."

Before I could progress discussions further we would need to get your reasoning, not your gut feeling, on the table. That means each necessary fact together with the chain of logic. Even then I may not be the person for Pentagon No Plane discussions - I suspect so many of the facts you would wish to use are in the "cannot say either way" territory.

Remember we would be considering your claim. Not my attempted rebuttal of a claim which has not been clearly made and supported with evidence and logic.

And I have not forgotten that the topic is nominally a paper/news article by Cimino.

[ozeco41]

Going further than I normally would I have taken a bit of time to read the Cimino document.

Step one should (could?) be to get his "walls of text" down to manageable scale and into a format suitable for initial discussions.

So Bite #1:

Unfortunately, many people in America are unaware that the Washington, D.C. area has Raytheon “Basic Point Defense” missile battery armament embedded on several building rooftops there, using Sea Sparrow air defense missiles, much in the same fashion that Moscow has a system that NATO code named ‘Yo Yo’ that maintains radar surveillance and provides protection to the Kremlin and other high value targets from military incursions. In other words, the Pentagon was protected not only by these missile batteries, but also had in place a number of adjacent fighter bases which provided a fairly high level of protection given the fact that the plane inbound to the Pentagon from the east was not supersonic as are the adjacent fighter jets based in the area, and therefore easily could have been intercepted and at the very least, temporarily deflected off course if not shot down, if need be, long before it reached the target on the building, known as ‘The Catchers Mit’ due to recent renovations which added several inches of KEVLAR armor to that face of the building to protect the occupants. For those of you who are not familiar with Kevlar armor and how it works, the only much more vastly superior but significantly more expensive armor is ceramic in nature and is often used jointly with Kevlar to protect personnel from high energy armor piercing rounds fired by tanks and other anti armor weapons such as are mounted on most military attack helicopters, for instance, such as the 30mm cannon and the infamous Obama well used ‘hellfire’ anti tank missile system.

In addition, there is a system, known as “Identification Friend or Foe” aka I.F.F., which uses a special MODE 4A feature that only military aircraft use, whereupon special encryption. Additionally, a mission specific MODEX aka SEDSCAF number for each plane is assigned and if it does not meet the PLAN OF THE DAY for the area, IT STILL IS NOT GOING TO PASS MODE 4A MUSTER. It would be shot down. No “if”s, no “and”s and no “but”s!!!!

The proper MODEX / SEDSCAF NUMBER is what enables an aircraft them to penetrate prohibited or military restricted airspace such as that which surrounds both the White House and the Pentagon, as well as a number of military installations around the globe. This feature is necessary to prevent the possible mis-identification of a civilian aircraft by military air defense personnel who man radar scopes in the Washington, D.C. area, 24/7, watching for unauthorized aircraft who do not have the proper MODE 4A response capability or code in use with their on board transponders. Only military aircraft have this Mode 4A capability, or what is often referred to as ‘crypto Beacon Video’ military ATC specialists.

The "hit point" on the ground floor

In any case, the reason I mention this is that there are several echelons of protection which allegedly all summarily ‘failed’ us on Sept. 11th., 2001, and allowed an unidentified plane hurtling towards Washington, D.C.’s protected airspace, long after the First targets in New York had already been seriously damaged. To be honest, it is simply not possible for virtually every one of these systems to have been overcome by 19 guys wielding no more than box cutters. It took a lot of sabotage or unplugging on the ground to do that.

Debatable summary:
There were anti-aircraft missile defence systems installed and protecting the Pentagon on 9/11.
They were not used.
Claim: Somebody stopped them being uased.
Some kevlar armour had been installed.
Claim: None explicit. Implication that Kevlar would have stopped the 'plane. Non-sequitur - he is claiming "no plane" anyway.

My understanding: There were no such anti aircraft systems. That should be a matter of simple determinable fact. If I am right all the relevant claims in Cimino fail AND doubt is placed on all his claims. If I am wrong more may need to be considered.

Some comments. Nothing about the status of this portion of Cimino's claim requires understanding of the air traffic jargon and content.

So, on September 11, 2001, what took place was a plane that was not a scheduled air carrier flight, per the Bureau of Transportation Statistics or BTS database, departed Dulles International from a departure gate that does not match the coordinates transmitted by FDR data stored in the CPM provided by the N.T.S.B., flight data recorder records, on that non-scheduled American Airlines flight, aka ‘FLT 77’ per the government’s submission, where this flight allegedly left Dulles with a hijacker on board who was capable of flying a very sophisticated and complex airplane that even the average pilot in the F.A.A. pilot registry could probably not really fly with such precision. This plane took off, climbed to it’s cruise altitude, and then over W. Virginia, was hijacked in 3 minutes time, and then executed a ‘standard rate’ turn which no hijacker would have performed with such precision, and immediately turned inbound to the perfect heading that would take it directly to the Pentagon, even though for hijackers to do this, would have meant they would have had to know exactly where the aircraft was immediately — and I do mean, IMMEDIATELY — and then have the requisite knowledge of how to re-program the complicated FMS computers in the aircraft to display target area data to them, because as you might have guessed, they did not bring their own GPS system with them on the planes that would have given them immediate positional information as well as a much more immediate way of turning the plane onto a magnetic heading that would take it to Washington, D.C. from that nice precise standard rate turnaround in the skies over West Virginia. Impressed? I sure am, as would be many B-757 line captains who fly this airplane every day, especially with the level of complexity the FMS or Flight Management System on that airplane has, that has on at least one occasion, led to the crash and destruction of a similarly equipped American Airlines B-757 in the mountains just outside of Cali, Colombia just a few years before this.

Debatable summary:
Claim: The alleged hijacker couldn't have flown the plane for the necessary portion of its journey.
All dressed up in complicated language and (several) "Texas Sharpshooter" fallacies.

As A non-pilot I am aware that steering a plane which is already established in flight is not an onerous task. In fact steering a large plane is in many ways easier than steering a small one. That is the essence of this paragraph of Cimino claims which he does not support.

I won't at this stage pursue the details which Cimino asserts. e.g. that use of the FMS was mandatory to point towards the Washington destination.

I'll pause there.....