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

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by jthomas
They weren't B-17s.

Try again.

And why do you keep inventing scenarios to fit conclusions you want?

They were some kind of bomber (B-25). If you knew, then why didn't you just say so? What's your little game?

Facts are not games to me, only to those who do not care for factual truth.

Trying different scenarios is a legitimate investigative approach. I guess you didn't know that.

NOT after the investigations have been completed and you cannot refute them.

Originally posted by jprophet420
I guess it makes you mad that you can't defend the government story with anything solid. Have a nice read. (you won't)

You know perfectly well that there's no "government story" to defend. There is ONLY the evidence from hundreds of independent sources that you cannot refute.

You know perfectly well that as much as you try, YOU cannot shift the burden of truth to anyone's shoulders.

YOU are the one that believes he has something to prove. So stop whining that you are being challenged to support your claims.

reply to post by ipsedixit


Wow. Now that was fascinating. It seems that without the treachery of the Secret Service, Kennedy may not have been assassinated in Dallas, and without the treachery of the FBI, those traitors in the Secret Service may have gone to the electric chair or spilled the beans on who gave them their orders to abandon Kennedy to the snipers. The Secret Service employs really good snipers. I wonder if JFK's killers were Secret Service?



So once again we see the connivance of the Secret Service and the FBI at the Pentagon on 9-11, committing treason against the people of the United States. With all the propaganda Hollywood flicks through the years building up the Secret Service and FBI, we have had it drilled into our heads from birth that these are honorable agencies, dedicated to truth and justice and preserving our Constitution and freedom.

Maybe we should check the connivance of the Secret Service and FBI in every assassination or attempt or questionable disaster such as Waco, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, Reagan, Flight 800, Oklahoma City, etc in the US. We might be surprised at what we find, or maybe not so surprised.

Reality is such a bummer.

posted by ipsedixit

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2212a5770815.jpg[/atsimg]

If it continued to bank hard right, could it actually have landed on runway 15/33?

I doubt it.

But the 9-11 perps could sure make it look like the decoy aircraft, which had just flown Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo, had just taken off from Reagan to witnesses across the Potomac to the east, or was going to land to witnesses west of the Potomac, who would all immediately return their eyes to the Hollywood Special Effects spectacle rising above the Pentagon.

Then the wonderful FBI could threaten and bully any person who thought differently, and most definitely confiscate any cameras, photos, or videos in their possession for National Security.

reply to post by SPreston

But the 9-11 perps could sure make it look like the decoy aircraft, which had just flown Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo, had just taken off from Reagan to witnesses across the Potomac to the east, or was going to land to witnesses west of the Potomac, who would all immediately return their eyes to the Hollywood Special Effects spectacle rising above the Pentagon.

Your fantasy world is truly amazing. Ignore the facts, claim some wild fantasy, rinse. Repeat. THAT is the broken record of SPreston.

Even when faced with undeniable, overwhelming evidence, some people's egos just won't relent.

They were NOT departing from Runway 33 that morning. They were NOT landing to the South, opposite the flow. If you actually understood aviation, you'd realize how ridiculous your "theory" up above is.

There were NO take offs from DCA after 0930 local time. The 'Ground Stop' was issued at 0929, with effectivity at 0930 (1330 UTC)

There have been numerous threads, here, with the ATC tape recordings, various facilities. Threads showing the Radar information, plotted over maps, so it is as simple as can be made, to show the fallacy of any "North of Citgo" or "flyover" nonsense. YET, "deniers" just continue to deny facts, because they desperately wish to cling to the paranoid, and the delusion.

Hanging ones' hat on a handful of spotty "witnesses" to a different ground track, people who have CHANGED their story since November, 2001...and whose current "testimony" was obtained using dubious "investigation" techniques by that crack team out on the Left Coast.....

It is really quite sad.

reply to post by ipsedixit

At five miles out, the Secret Service calls Reagan Tower.

I'm not so sure that it was the Secret Service who called the tower. If it's Stephenson's voice we hear in the recording I linked to earlier, then it is definitely not the Secret Service. That call came from a departure controller downstairs in the TRACON.

Here's a link to the opposite end of the recorded conversation (8:25 mark).

There are similarities between the two newspaper accounts and what was actually recorded:

audio recording: "okay, you see that guy 5 miles west? That's a 757."

USA Today: "About 9:30, the phone that connects his tower to the Secret Service rang. A voice on the other end said an unidentified aircraft was speeding toward Washington. Stephenson looked at the radarscope and saw that the jet was about five miles to the west."

Examiner.com: "He peered through the clear blue sky that fall morning from his chair in the control tower high above the Main Terminal at Reagan National Airport and that’s when the “movie” began. The plane the radar room had picked up was just five miles away and he could see it clearly."

reply to post by SPreston


SPreston, are you a hologram proponent?

It sounds that way to me. You believe that the "9/11 perps" tricked everyone on the west side of the Potomac into believing that the "decoy-jet" was landing at Reagan while, at the same time, they tricked everyone on the east side into believing that it was taking off from Reagan.

Seriously, man, lay off the Mind Freak and David Blaine specials for a while. It's corrupting your thought process.

reply to post by jthomas


I have presented the evidence to you and you can do what you want with it. If you say there is no government story you are literally retarded or in denial. That is not an insult, that is a cold hard fact. If you can't understand that I am sorry but I do not know why you repeatedly post here. I really don't think you are retarded but sometimes you seriously act as if your i.q. was that of a young child. To say there is no "official story" is one thing, to say there is no government story is blatant ignorance.

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas

 

I have presented the evidence to you and you can do what you want with it. If you say there is no government story you are literally retarded or in denial. That is not an insult, that is a cold hard fact. If you can't understand that I am sorry but I do not know why you repeatedly post here. I really don't think you are retarded but sometimes you seriously act as if your i.q. was that of a young child. To say there is no "official story" is one thing, to say there is no government story is blatant ignorance.

Blah...Blah...

You can pretend that no evidence exists all you want, jprophet420. To claim that there is no evidence but only an "official story" or "government story" just means that you can continue to pretend you have nothing to refute.

It's your choice to fall for that silly fallacious reasoning. It's the quicksand upon which the 9/11 Denial Movement's house of cards is built on.

Now, if you're finished whining, how about getting back to the OP?

Originally posted by SPreston
But the 9-11 perps could sure make it look like the decoy aircraft, which had just flown Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo...

Thus is the intellectual vacuum that Craig and Aldo and Preston and the others live in. One of their main talking points is how "aircraft are flying over the Pentagon every few minutes every day". Its a mantra for them. It is one of the linchpins of their theory. Without it, their whole "flyover" theory falls apart.

Problem is, the area where they claim the "flyover" happened, never, ever, ever has nor never, ever ever had any aircraft flying in that direction or from that direction *ever*.

Craig, Aldo, Cap't Bob, Preston, and company would like the world to believe that a 757-type airliner flying at 50 to less than 100 feet above South Parking is a commonplace occurrence and something that should nor raise any alarms in anyone.

Intellectual vacuum.

When do the trials start, boys?

I think that one of the things that should be pointed out is that "fooling all of the people all of the time" with regard to the goings on around the Pentagon on 9/11 would not have been considered a reasonable possibility by any of the planners of the 9/11 events, assuming, as I do, that they included people like Cheney and Meyers.

They would have realised that people might be used to seeing aircraft of some description low in the skies around the Pentagon. That's to the good. That is something they could use to allow the overflying airliner to slip away from the area unsuspected.

It's really a numbers game. What were the chances of knowledgeable observers seeing and noting that the airliner was facing the wrong way or was the wrong class of aircraft to be associated with runway 15/33? Small. Anyway, a risk had to be run. Chances are the majority of the people would believe that the plane crashed into the building.

Others would believe what they were told, even if it went against what they themselves had seen.

The majority of knowledgeable people in the area wouldn't even see the event. The ones who did, might assume an exception to the airport rules, given the context of the day. The ATCs in the tower could be controlled by threats of job loss. The one or two knowledgeable people who might think something was suspicious about what they saw would be severely outnumbered in opinion. They might realize immediately that skulduggery must be afoot in high political places and be smart enough to keep quiet.

That is what I assume to be the context of any discussion of the event at the Pentagon. Consequently, saying that the overflight scenario is out of the question because anyone familiar with the situation at National would know that you couldn't hide a getaway because runway 15/33 was too short to be used by 757's, is not necessarily valid. Most operators of Cheney's type would just laugh and say, to borrow a phrase from John LeCarre, "We'll cross that bridge when we're past it."

In fact that could serve as the Bush administration's rule of engagement for the investigation of 9/11.

Note: To Boone 870, I'm trying to listen to those recordings you posted and want to think about them before I post. Thanks for the links.


[edit on 23-8-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit


While you are listening to the tower audio, pay attention to the chatter between the controllers and SkyEx 2020. He was diverted from RWY 1 to RWY 33 to allow Delta 1777 to back taxi northbound on Runway 1.

Here are SkyEx 2020's radar returns (in blue) from the DCA radar antenna. The single orange dot is the last radar return from Flight 77.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dc492df4687c.jpg[/atsimg]

Still waiting for you to point out the manipulation of the facts weedy....

Too tricky perhaps....??



....and Ive gone through my grammar for you.....

....in case the last time you responded by picking out my lack of CAPITALS you had done so to ignore the Q's.....

reply to post by benoni

...waiting for you to point out the manipulation of the facts ...

Huh?? OK, I'll play.

Now excuse me, while I scroll through and try to figure out what the heck you're asking.....

Fun game we're playing....
________________________________________________________
(edit)
OK, found what I think is your question???

...but please dont forget to squeeze your engines through that hole tto, because they never even left a mark or scratch on the Pentagon...

Is that it?

There's no telling where you got that information, but it seems to be faulty. I'm going to borrow from another's post to show you, hope he won't mind...

Originally posted by joey Canoli

Due to the presence of smoke and firefighting operations after the explosion at the Pentagon, no single photograph shows the full extent of the damage to the facade before the collapse of the overhanging section. However, the maximum extent of punctures to the facade have been determined by compositing a number of photographs. This process allows us to determine the dimensions of the region with punctured walls:

-about 96 feet wide across the first floor
-about 18 feet wide across the second floor
-about than 26 feet high in the center

911review.com...

-The entire width of impacted facade measured at least 140 feet.....
-The entire width of the impact hole from column lines 8 to 18 is approximately 96 feet. The entire width of the damaged facade from column lines 5 to 20 is about 140 feet.

Good info, there.

But wait, there's more! benoni, here is the photo you used to "prove' your point:

Originally posted by benoni
This is a photo of the impact site of the Pentagon before it collapsed.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/26037e67a587.jpg[/atsimg]

BUT, thanks to GenRadek, we have these more representative photos:

Originally posted by GenRadek

SO....using that picture you posted, sure it gives an impression....a FALSE impression. Funny how they lied to you, isn't it?


[edit on 23 August 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Boone 870


Which plane might this be? Following close behind the alleged "AA77"?

Nobody else reported an aircraft following "AA77". THere is no data to
support it.

The video of the C-130 shows up while the black smoke is billowing out
of the Pentagon, and that has already been sliced every which way from
Sunday...aside from the fact that a C-130 can't fly 500+ MPH.

So, how valid is this account? It doesn't support either story, and is a
sole account. Not very good at all.

reply to post by Boone 870

I still haven't had a chance to really go at those recordings but I saw your last post and I wondered if anyone had talked to the pilot of SkyEx 2020?

It would be interesting to hear what he had to say. Is there any statement or interview out there that you know of with this pilot?

Here is a related interview concerning the disinfo by Hoffman:

Balsamo and Lear interview
vimeo.com...

[edit on 24-8-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan

Which plane might this be? Following close behind the alleged "AA77"?

This would be the same plane that another eyewitness described as "a second jet hovering in the skies .”

So, how valid is this account? It doesn't support either story, and is a sole account. Not very good at all.

Did you follow the link?

I won't tell CIT you are questioning the credibility of one of their witnesses, I promise.

reply to post by turbofan


Thanks, turbo, for the laugh!!

The first nine minutes or so, Lear wanders down memory lane, His time flying for CIA, the IranContra debacle (??)...etc.

THEN, and I love this part...when asked, Lear says flat-out he will NOT be a 'spokesman' for P4T

Then, even Balsamo admits that his group are being accused by the "movement" (I assume he means the others in the so-called "tryth movment") of being devisive!!! AND, he just dismisses that, because he's 'obviously' just a Patriot!!!

Too funny. AND we're expected to think that because they call out Hoffman, when he isn't even there to respond AT ALL, that they are the "know-it-alls"???

Please.....

Click here to learn more about this warning.