It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 11
7
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

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


Yup, it's real funny that Lear still supports P4T and their work by keeping his name on
the core member list


You can infer whatever you wish with your little word-twistie game



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"???


wow, I don't know what else to say other than I LOVE when GL's bury
themselves with their own stupid logic.

Did Hoffman not pull one of those "know-it-all" stunts by making statements
without a P4T core member to debate?

Keep up the great work GL's; your comedy is quite moving.

Boone: You can also keep playing the word-twistie game. None of your
story makes sense at the CIT witness claims the aircraft was LOW over
the south parking lot IMMEDIATELY after the explosion.



[edit on 24-8-2009 by turbofan]




posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 



Boone: You can also keep playing the word-twistie game. None of your
story makes sense at the CIT witness claims the aircraft was LOW over
the south parking lot IMMEDIATELY after the explosion.


Turbo, there is no word-twistie game going on here.

I was just pointing out the fact that one is CIT's own star witnesses claimed that he witnessed a second aircraft flying around at the height of telephone poles shortly after the Hollywood special effects explosion.

This sounds exactly like the aircraft Roosevelt Roberts Junior described.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
So here we all are, and none of our 9/11 Denial friends here can yet provide any positive evidence that any flyover of the Pentagon ever took place.

Even CIT has been forced to agree.




posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



So here we all are, and none of our 9/11 Denial friends here can yet provide any positive evidence that any flyover of the Pentagon ever took place.

Even CIT has been forced to agree.


So, here you are and none of your 9/11 ignorant friends here can yet provide any positive evidence that any flyover didn’t take place at the pentagon.

Even OS has been forced to agree.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.


Wasn't that hilarious? P4T is the Troother's version of a Self-Licking Ice Cream Cone, but they are the "Self-Debunking Conspiracy Group".

Capt Bob just doesn't realize how hilarious he looks when he trots out someone like John "Hologram" Moon Base" "Atmosphere on the Moon" Lear and try to tout him as a reason why their "club" is special.

Keep it up, guys, and btw...when do the trials start????



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I can't believe you put ?? after mentioning Iran Contra, as it was a direct precursor to 911. Sometimes you make such educated statements but sometimes you let bias reign.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


I thought 9/11 was more about the continued presence, and establishment of bases in the ME subsequent to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

The (??) for Iran/Contra weren't there to refute the scandal, just to question the relevence.

I mean, Central American rebels and a dirty CIA/backed "revolution" down there, with weapons supplied and funneled somehow in an Iranian connection....under-the-table peace overtures to Iran?

AND the Saudi connection, the hijackers...didn't think Iran and the Saudis were that cozy.

Well, there's more to that, I reckon. I've never really studied it in depth. AND, if it's that convoluted, deserves a thread!!! (hint, hint!)



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Weedy...

Hi...me again..

"Funny how they lied to you..."

Firstly...its not a laughing matter....

Secondly....either your telling little white lies here or your happy to spew whatever genradek and co. are pushing today...

Firstly you tell me theres no picture that gives a total overview of the crashsite, then you reproduce radeks pix(sure he wont mind you using them...they arent his)...

I still dont see anything, repeat ANYTHING resembling a plane...nothing on the photos you chose......

If on the second photo you believe a plane crashsite is in evidence, please show me because theres nothing to see...nothing.

Except of course those reels.....which should not be there if you are suggesting that area to be the site the plane hit...

It makes me wonder what you are up to and where you get your tall tales from...



I sense, given the confusion you seem to find yourself in, that you have a hidden agenda or something....a bias perhaps??

Cos those big spools should NOT be there if you are saying thats where the plane hit??


Wanna play The Game again??
Because your explinations are both contradictory and untrue!!

Yours

Benny



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


I really hate to remain in a personal conversation via a thread. It's not right.

Please review my posts more carefully, find specific examples and show me, or just accept for a moment the WEALTH of information presented here. I see a lot of ONE side that display certain pictures, without showing the whole shebang. I thik I linked, rather than posting specifically, just to keep the thread cleaner.

It loads faster without all the giant pics, too.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


and you would expect to see the window broken which it is not.. and you would expect to see that huge cable spool damaged it some way but miraculously it was not touched! Anyone that thinks a plane was flown into the pentagon has got to be great liars even to themselves. There's just to much evidence that says there was no plane! Missile yes.. plane no.. also.. 85 video's.. and we get how many frames released? If you look at planes that have crashed they hunt and find every little piece and then take them and basically put the plane back together even though they know why that plane crashed. They photograph and document the whole investigation... on 911 all debris was pretty much shipped overseas and no one was allowed to investigate the wreckage.. To this day I can't believe there are people out there that still believe Arabs in a cave pulled this off.. wow



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by turbofan
 

What aircraft is Roberts talking about that appears immediately after the explosion? You know, the plane he saw when he ran out onto the dock? YOu know the one he said was over the south parking lot just about the height of the poles?


I believe it's the same aircraft that another one of CIT's star witnesses described in a similar manner.


... we heard this boom, you know, this big explosion. And we, all we could see was the smoke and the heat. We could feel the heat. And it was so intense that after that happened, we looked up in the sky and there was another plane...

...It was low enough that it could touch the building, the warehouse. It was close...

...Yeah, I'd probably say about telephone pole height...


Link



Ahhhh so now you are citing the anonymous CMH interview transcript from Russell Roy without mentioning his name or the fact that we video recorded him on location!



Video interview in Part 2 of The North Side Flyover.

I wonder why you would leave out those pertinent details?

I'll tell you why.

So you can play your twisty-wordy game.

You know darn well Russell proves the 84 RADES data fraudulent by corroborating every other honest witness in the area including Erik Dihle about the approach of the C-130 from the NORTHWEST.




You also know darn well the notion they could all get this so drastically wrong is ridiculous since it would appear to be coming from the SOUTH to them if the RADES data were true.



And you also know that there is NO WAY the plane with "propellers" that Russell saw approach from the northwest is the airliner with "jet engines" that Roosevelt saw over the south parking lot since everyone can watch Russell describe on video how it turned around BEFORE the Pentagon and "never made it to the Pentagon" and therefore never made it to south parking according to him and all the other cemetery workers who saw this plane.

Many people were spooked by the C-130 so it's not that amazing that Russell would exaggerate how low it was during his interview with the CMH. After all it is the ONLY plane he saw since he was in the garage turning in his uniform during the explosion and therefore completely missed the attack.

So obviously since he never saw the attack jet he did not claim to see the C-130 "following" or "shadowing" anything at all.

But yes his CMH transcript is confusing and ambiguous enough that John Farmer was able to use this then anonymous account as HIS star witness for his 2 plane disinfo essay for Gaffney's book suggesting it was a north side flyover of the E4B!


He even quoted Russell in the title, "You All Just Haven't Talked About It".

But we foiled that plan by finding Russell Roy and interviewing him on camera while confirming that he only saw ONE plane and that it had "propellers". So we know for a fact it was the C-130 which flew nowhere near south parking OR on the RADES flight path according to Russell and everyone else definitively proving a deception.

Look how sneaky you get with the facts when I'm not here babysitting the thread keeping you in check.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

You know darn well Russell proves the 84 RADES data fraudulent by corroborating every other honest witness in the area including Erik Dihle about the approach of the C-130 from the NORTHWEST.


False. He does not corroborate what the other three ANC witnesses claim they saw.

Prather and Carter are both facing the West and pointing out a path that has the aircraft approaching from the north before describing the C-130 flying to a point south of the Navy Annex before turning back to the Northwest.

Stafford clearly has the C-130 approaching from the west (over Southgate Road) before making a left-hand turn and departing the area to the Northwest.

Roy is facing the north and has the C-130 approaching and leaving from the north without ever having passed a point south of ANC. This directly contradicts Prather's and Carter's description.

Four witnesses, three separate flight paths. That is not corroboration.



And you also know that there is NO WAY the plane with "propellers" that Russell saw approach from the northwest is the airliner with "jet engines" that Roosevelt saw over the south parking...*snipped*


Much like Roberts, Russell Roy described it as a "commercial airliner" in his original CMH interview.


CMH: Did it look like a commercial aircraft or did it look like-

Roy: I would say a commercial aircraft.


He did not mention "propellers" in the original interview. For all I know, you coached him to say propellers.



Many people were spooked by the C-130 so it's not that amazing that Russell would exaggerate how low it was during his interview with the CMH.


Right. On one hand you're telling me that I cannot take his description literally because he was spooked, but on the other hand you expect me to accept Roberts account of "100 feet over the south parking lot" as the gospel.

Why the inconsistencies, Craig?



But yes his CMH transcript is confusing and ambiguous enough that John Farmer was able to...*snipped*


"Confusing and ambiguous"...?

I would describe it as contradictory. When you interviewed him, he describes the aircraft as approaching from and departing to the north. In the CMH interview, while facing the Pentagon, he says that the C-130 "was on the left side" of the building. That is not north.

How can that be, Craig?



So we know for a fact it was the C-130 which flew nowhere near south parking OR on the RADES flight path according to Russell and everyone else definitively proving a deception.


Lie!

What you meant to say was, every one that CIT has not deemed to be a fraud, liar, or a disinfo agent.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



...that Roosevelt saw over the south parking lot...


Craig, you do a lot dissembling, and wave your hands and point and misdirect and allege....talk about "word ganes"!!!


But, the truly sad part is you've hung your hat on only a handfull of "witnesses", in this case, just ONE "witness", and only those that you like, ignoring anything that doesn't "fit" your fantasy.


Just have a look at the satellite views, again, in what you just posted!!

Pay attention to where the National Airport Tower cab is located. The buildings, the offices, the hotels of Crystal City block the view of the actual Pentagon building, yes. But, look!! For this imaginary airplane, the one "Over the South Parking Lot" to fly PAST the Pentagon, OVER the parking lot, and HIGH enough to not hit any obstructions, it would A) Be at least partially in sight from the National Tower and, B) As "it" continued Eastbound, it would have moved into a position where there is a clear, unobstructed view FROM the Tower cab!

This means that, anything that your "witness" saw was not out of the ordinary, the Controllers weren't troubled by it, and your "witness"...your ONE "witness" you so desperately cling to, is simply in error. Witness tend to do that, quite often in fact. Make mistakes, I mean.

Uncomfortable facts, for you. Ignored, of course, because it's best to ignore any uncomfortable facts.

Better, far better to make stuff up, like the RADES Radar data just had to be "faked"...funny you should bring out that old gem, thinking everyone has forgotten about the huge thread here on ATS that shows that allegation to be false.

"Wordy Games", indeed.


The position of, and conclusions made by, the 'CIT' are simply unsupportable, and too fantastic to merit serious consideration. And, you likely know this. Therefore, it's important to constantly obscure, to "Razzle Dazzle 'em!" with the tactics employed by the 'CIT'.

Circus barkers were doing it long before 'CIT', and they fooled a lot more people.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Weedy

"Uncomfortable fact" you say in your last post....??


I suspect your skirting anound my Q's because they contain "uncomfortable facts "as well....

Those pesky spools.....really seem to throw a spanner in the works eh??


Oh, and for someone who revels in correcting grammar and spellings on this site,let me advise you that your last thread was grammatically poor....and indicates to me you have no room to talk.....got a mirror??



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 



Those pesky spools.....really seem to throw a spanner in the works eh??


The spools! The spools! My Kingdom for a spool!

ben, the ONE image you seem of the 'spools', you hinge your notion on, not the entire scene does it present fully. (How's that for bad grammar?....or, is it just Yoda-speak?)


Have you looked up any other photos? Seen different angles, views looking down on the entire scene, for perspective?

I'll go look for examples to clarify.
____________________________________________

Trying to add this, see if it works. If it does, shows more spools. Scattered about. Who knows how they were arranged pre-impact???
ALSO, some mention here of the diesel generator that was struck by the jet.




Area of fence to the right of the impact area partially flattened by the right engine of the plane. Note how a couple of the poles are bent right
over, some are sheered off at the top, yet the pole and fence portion on the left is untouched (obviously the right engine took out the fence to the
right of those poles) and the entire back side of the fence has been torn away. The generator was hit by the right wing and engine before the 757 hit
the building...






[edit on 25 August 2009 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 25 August 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Iran-Contra means against Iran. It means we gave weapons to.......


Iraq.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


We seem to both be half-wrong:


The Iran-Contra affair (Persian: ماجرای مک‌فارلین, Spanish: caso Irán-contras) was a political scandal in the United States which came to light in November 1986, during the Reagan administration, in which senior US figures agreed to facilitate the sale of arms to Iran, the subject of an arms embargo, to secure the release of hostages and to fund Nicaraguan contras.


Source

(added emphasis tags)



[edit on 25 August 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Hey weed, I dont mind at all you using the pictures I posted earlier. Good to see someone understanding what they represent.


Now all we have to do is sit back and watch the "no-plane"boys spin themselves into a frenzy and self-destruct when its quite obvious they are up a certain river made up of a certain bodily function, without an object to propel themselves on this river.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Very good find sir, I knew you weren't just some random anti truther. I stand corrected and am investigating now. I had assumed it was a scenario where we fought via proxy like in the 80's in Afghanistan. Iran and Iraq are so split its hard to understand sometimes that there are 4 factions not 2. The plot thickens so to speak.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
I'm starting to listen to the tape of the ATC from Washington National tower in more detail. There are some interesting things in it.

What plane is Condor 1? At first I thought it must be the C-130, but without having researched it in detail, judging from the flight path posted by Craig earlier, the C-130 must have originated from Andrews AFB. So what plane is Condor 1?

At 8:25 approx of the tape Condor 1 comes on the air inquiring about the smoke north of the tower and is told a plane has crashed at the Pentagon. He then asks "Can we get up?" and is told to stand by. A few seconds later he is told "At your discretion." Condor 1 does not come back to the tower on the radio.

Just wondering who that guy was and is it known if he took off? This must have been a special plane of some kind because the ATC had already said that all departures were stopped.

(I want to talk about a couple of more points in the tape but I want to make sure that I have it all straight. It's not easy for a layperson to follow this sort of conversation. By now I've listened to it three or four times and am using headphones. I'm starting to penetrate the maze.)

As a sort of follow up to that, I should add that there is a female voice in the backround. This person refers a couple of times to all departures being stopped. Is she the ATC supervisor? Is she having difficulty getting her ATCs to stop the departures? The ATC who is the subject of the recording seems to react to her with some irritation, as if he has been slow to comply with the 'all stop' order.

The conversation with Condor 1 would support that interpretation of what is going on, wouldn't it?

[edit on 26-8-2009 by ipsedixit]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join