Truth Movement "leader" Jim Hoffman Debunks CIT Flyover "Hoax"

I was reading some blogs on various truther sites regarding the Flyover Theory invented by the Citizens Investigation Team. There appears to be many truthers that disagree with CIT and their theory.

In particular, Jim Hoffman gave an interview where he claims CIT's theory is incorrect.

Listen to the audio here

or listen to it with attached Youtube video:





[edit on 18-8-2009 by CameronFox]

I hate it when people fight crap with crap. I listened to the audio for over a minute and it was sad music with george bush samples.

Why is presenting evidence so damn hard to you people?

911 Truth Now is a forum of truthers that were welcoming Jim Hoffman to their site. It turned into an Anti-CIT sling fest. Most here disagree with the CIT Flyover/ around theory.

Peter Dale Scott writes:

"I have not endorsed the flyover theory for Flight 77, and I do not personally believe it."

citwatch.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by jprophet420
I hate it when people fight crap with crap.

And you JUST summed up the truth movement in one sentence.

I listened to the audio for over a minute and it was sad music with george bush samples.

The video gets right into the interview.

Why is presenting evidence so damn hard to you people?

This, I assume is presented to all truthers on this forum?

[edit on 18-8-2009 by CameronFox]

1. Indeed. Summed up both sides actually.
2. so you presented 2 pieces of evidence and one is blatantly biased. says a lot.
3. most people from both sides. my enemies list includes many truthers.

Please stop spreading misinformation. The 9/11 truth movement does not have any leaders. We are all independent researchers with differing experiences and qualifications while seeking a common goal.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Please stop spreading misinformation. The 9/11 truth movement does not have any leaders. We are all independent researchers with differing experiences and qualifications while seeking a common goal.

Please learn to read and notice the quotation marks. Then, Bonez, notice I linked the wikipage for Jim Hoffman where it states this:

The Editor of Popular Mechanics, formerly of Entertainment Weekly, James B. Meigs, describes Hoffman as a "leading conspiracy theorist.

Originally posted by jprophet420



1. Indeed. Summed up both sides actually.

It's not too often you see debunkers fighting like school kids on a website. I never heard of missing $$ from skeptics forums.

2. so you presented 2 pieces of evidence and one is blatantly biased. says a lot.

No, i gave you links that I found at a truthers website.

3. most people from both sides. my enemies list includes many truthers.

Im sad now.

I'm not impressed by the discussion embedded by the OP. It is very similar to some of the threads discussing the CIT presentations here on ATS. You have statements similar to "hundreds of people would have seen", "hundreds of people could have seen". Well, it turns out that when you actually look at what some of those people testify to, things are not so cut and dry.

CIT has done the due diligence on this. Hoffman and the other guy are recycling weak ideas and arguments seen many times on ATS. I'll take the two cops at the Citgo station any time over somebody like Mike "folded like an accordion" Walter. In a real court case witnesses aren't matched like stacks of checkers. They are cross examined and judge and jury decide whether they are lying or mistaken.

I don't listen to a lot of truther radio, but what I have heard has a lot in common with all radio. The host of the program is usually way up his own butt.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by CameronFox

How does "leading conspiracy theorist" translate to "truth movement leader"?

No wonders people like you can't see that three buildings of the WTC were brought down with explosives. You twist the facts to suit your agenda. Since you've been doing research on CIT's work, how about doing some research on the 9/11 truth movement and realize that we don't have nor follow any one particular person or group.

reply to post by CameronFox


Jim Hoffman is a 'leader'? Fancy that.

I don't believe I am familiar with much of his material. Maybe I should take a look.

Well golly gee, very first article I pull up is an expose of the Military Industrial Complex lapdog and mouthpiece UnPopular Mechanics featuring professional liar Jim Meigs.

Can't hardly fault Jim Hoffman on that one can we?

Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man

But a 'leader' of the 9-11 Truth Movement? That's a new one on me.

Makes me wonder.

Are you a 'leader' of the 9-11 Perp Movement CameronFox?

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by jprophet420



1. Indeed. Summed up both sides actually.

It's not too often you see debunkers fighting like school kids on a website. I never heard of missing $$ from skeptics forums.

2. so you presented 2 pieces of evidence and one is blatantly biased. says a lot.

No, i gave you links that I found at a truthers website.

3. most people from both sides. my enemies list includes many truthers.

Im sad now.

Right, like when NIST debunked the popular mechanics "debunking" nobody fought over it, they just stopped mentioning it. Much more tasteful.

It's really a moot point. Not a single piece of [I]positive[/I] evidence that a jet flew over and away from the Pentagon has ever been presented by anyone. There is really nothing for Hoffman or anyone to refute.

Even SPreston cannot deny that.

It's really a moot point. Not a single piece of positive evidence that a jet flew over and away from the Pentagon has ever been presented by anyone. There is really nothing for Hoffman or anyone to refute.

Even SPreston cannot deny that.

Originally posted by jthomas
It's really a moot point. Not a single piece of positive evidence that winged plane hit the Pentagon has ever been presented by anyone. There is really nothing for Hoffman or anyone to refute.

Even Jthomas cannot deny that.

Another thing that annoys me about the OP's embedded video is that we find Hoffman of all people, suggesting that people look at plane crashes scientifically.

A video within the video shows a military jet crashing into a hardened wall of a type proposed for nuclear power stations. It is implied that the plane disintegrated against the wall when in fact, a careful viewing of this portion of the video will show that the plane penetrated the wall and did not disintegrate.

Check 7:06 of the video where you will see the outer edge of the wing go right through the wall.

I don't know if Hoffman put this video together or if he intended that test of a military jet colliding with the wall as an illustration of his point, but it certainly is no such thing. If anything it "proves" in Hoffman's terms that there should have been plenty of wreckage of a Boing airliner inside the Pentagon.

Of course, at the Pentagon the wings didn't penetrate the wall and there is no evidence that they broke up on the outside either. Mike Walter, who saw the whole thing, said they folded back and were dragged into the building by the fuselage.

Hoffman should get on ATS and have to endure a few good bitch slappings to sharpen him up, the way most of us have had to, on both sides of the 9/11 question.


[edit on 18-8-2009 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Check 7:06 of the video where you will see the outer edge of the wing go right through the wall.

The plane's wingspan was wider than the concrete wall. What you're seeing is the part of the wing that is extended past the wall, continue on it's merry way.

You can also see the nose of the plane penetrating the wall. Another thing about that video is that they finish with a big cloud of dust but they don't show you the aftermath. There is good reason for that. There was plenty of wreckage left over, at least I would be willing to bet any amount of money on it.

Numerous fighter jets have crashed at high speed in the desert before. They may be flattened like beer cans but the notion that there is nothing left is preposterous.

Edit: I'm not so sure about the nose or the fuselage now. On a relook, it may have been traffic moving on the highway in the backround. I still think there would be wreckage left, even if the plane failed to penetrate the wall.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit


There will always be wreckage. Planes don't disappear just because they hit something. That F-4 would just be in millions of very tiny parts.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

I'm not so sure of that. Look at 7:00 where most of the plane has disappeared but where the engine is still thrusting and the whole wall is starting to give.

I think, to some extent, the forward part of the plane would act as a shock absorber for the engine.

At the Pentagon of course the plane hit at an angle. I would expect to see some kind of smearing effect along the wall with the fuselage breaking up and scattering along the wall together with the wings.



[edit on 18-8-2009 by ipsedixit]