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

reply to post by ipsedixit


Condor 1 is a DC police helicopter or a Park Service helicopter. They both launched helicopters shortly after the attack, but I'm almost certain the Condor callsign we used by DC police while Park Service used Eagle as their callsign.

I believe the female voice you are hearing is Wanda from the Command Center (ATCSCC). She doesn't identify herself in that call, but she can be heard in other recordings after identifying who she is.

Originally posted by Boone 870


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.

Correct although northwest is more accurate....completely contradictory to the RADES data that has it coming from what would appear to be the SOUTH to them in that final stretch.

Don't forget that Erik Dihle also corroborates the approach from 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.

Incorrect. You can see in the image that he is pointing out the C-130 coming from the same direction as the other guys....NORTHWEST.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dc593525903e.gif[/atsimg]

Sure the other guys place it a bit MORE northwest than he does but they ALL place it coming from northwest within an extremely reasonable margin of error of each other, proving they were not "coached", but NOT within a reasonable margin of error from the RADES required southern approach and you know it.

You are stating lies with confidence but the image above proves you wrong.

Northwest is far from south.

Oh and don't forget that Erik Dihle also corroborates the approach from 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.

Right he has it coming more from the NORTH and not the south as required by RADES. Of course since he had a completely different vantage from the other guys with the garage blocking his view of it until the plane was over him this is not surprising and is a reasonable margin of error to corroborate them sufficiently but more importantly to fatally contradict RADES

He would have had a perfectly clear view of the RADES approach from the south and he reported the OPPOSITE like all the rest proving RADES fraudulent.

Oh and don't forget that Erik Dihle also corroborates the approach from the NORTHWEST.

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

All generally from the NORTH and not the south as required by RADES. So yes that IS corroboration.

And don't forget that Erik Dihle also corroborates the approach from the NORTHWEST.

Funny how it doesn't bother you that you have to completely throw out ALL their accounts in order to accept the fraudulent RADES data that clearly isn't supported by ANY of them.

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

Ahhhh nice excuse when things don't go your way!

Just claim that I "coached" them with no evidence whatsoever!

I asked him if it had jet engines or propellers and he answered "propellers".

It's that simple.

Of course we all know that you sure as heck wouldn't bother to ask him directly since you already admitted that you thought you were looking Ed Paik in the face and were too "shy" to ask him a single question!


Sorry Boone but you don't have the right to accuse me of manipulating the witnesses if you don't even have the courage to approach witnesses directly to support your baseless accusation.

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?

No no.

CORROBORATION proves the general location of the C-130 approaching from the NORTHWEST and never making it as far as south parking.

THAT is the scientific process we're relying on and that you are regularly dismissing.

Furthermore the altitude is confirmed on video.

Oh and not even your precious but fraudulent RADES data has it flying over south parking.

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?

Because you are twisting and lying about his words which is why you didn't bother to quote him.

He cleared it up in person and on camera and you refuse to accept it because it fatally contradicts the RADES data like ALL other witnesses and you know it.

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.

Umm wrong.

Keith Wheelhouse is the ONLY dissenting voice about the approach direction and yes he is implicated by the other witnesses.....and guess what? HE FATALLY CONTRADICTS THE RADES DATA TOO WHICH HAS THE C-130 FLYING INTO THE SCENE A FULL 90 SECONDS LATER!!!!

Are you suggesting you believe Wheelhouse and his "shadowing" claim?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d77c63de82ca.gif[/atsimg]

If so it means you believe the RADES data is fraudulent.

So which is it Boone? Do you accept RADES or Wheelhouse? You sure as heck can't accept both.




[edit on 26-8-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Sorry Boone but you don't have the right to accuse me of manipulating the witnesses if you don't have the courage to approach witnesses directly to support your baseless accusation.

Is that more of your "scientific method"? Telling someone they don't have the right to accuse you of interview malfeasance simply because they didn't talk to someone? Sounds like "playground method" instead, which is what this whole contraption you've created is based in.

Tell you what. To settle this thing once and for all, why not ask Steve O'brien? You should still have his email and/or contact info. You have used his comments in support of your theory, so you have established him as a valid eyewitness to events of the day.

Or will you discount his report of his approach to the area of the Pentagon as the words of a "murderous government shill and hired Yankee air pirate"?

Or will you say "YOU contact him!"?

Send me his contact info and I will contact him.

[edit on 26-8-2009 by trebor451]

I'm trying to make a transcript of the recording and it is not easy. An ATC would probably have a lot less trouble with it than I am having.

With all of the disputes over the RADES data and FDR data I was wondering if anyone has taken the trouble to listen to what the ATC said and compare his transmission to Skyex 2020, to what is said by the technical data.

Here is a quote from my transcription. I calculated the time of the transmission by working backward from the known time that whatever it was blew up.

Link to audio recording

(IPSEDIXIT NOTE: THIS IS THE FIRST MENTION OF AA77 ON THIS TAPE. 0:03:42:00 on the tape or 9:33:35:11 AM Sept.11/01)

"Skyex 2020. Traffic. 2 o'clock. Two miles. Westbound. Altitude indicates one thousand three hundred."

"2020. We're looking."

This occurs roughly 3.5 to 4 minutes prior to impact. The aircraft is two miles from Skyex 2020 at the two o'clock position and westbound. At that point the tower doesn't know what it is and asks Skyex 2020 to see if he can see it.

Any thoughts, Craig, Boone?

Would he have already circled around the Pentagon and be heading back, to be located at Skyex's two o'clock as it comes in to land. He was only heading west (not counting the original westward flight plan of AA77) after he had looped around the Pentagon, so it sounds like they missed him completely on his first approach.

That would be extremely odd.


[edit on 26-8-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit

This occurs roughly 3.5 to 4 minutes prior to impact. The aircraft is two miles from alleged impact and westbound. At that point the tower doesn't know what it is and asks Skyex 2020 to see if he can see it.

This sounds like a significant departure from the story as it has been told previously. Any thoughts, Craig, Boone?

Craig will dismiss the audio recordings because they were "sequestered, controlled, and released by the perpetrator." He does this only because they completely destroy his concocted fantasy.

When SkyEx 2020 checks in with DCA Tower, he says "tower, SkyEx 2020 is with you outside OXONN."

OXONN is a navigational reporting point/NDB located 5.62 miles south of Reagan Airport. SkyEx 2020 is still south of, but heading north toward the airport when he checked in.

The aircraft tower is referring to was not flight 77. It was a VFR aircraft flying around without direction from controllers. That is why the tower doesn't know what type it is, but knows its altitude.

The type of radar used at Reagan (ASR-9) does not display altitude information to the controllers without receiving it from an aircraft's transponder. Flight 77's transponder was turned off.

Originally posted by Boone 870
The aircraft tower is referring to was not flight 77. It was a VFR aircraft flying around without direction from controllers. That is why the tower doesn't know what type it is, but knows its altitude.

That in itself is odd, isn't it? Later Skyex says this aircraft is a 757! What aircraft did this turn out to be?

reply to post by ipsedixit


ipsedixit,

Good that you're listening, but without being a pilot or Air Traffic Controller, it's gonna be hard to follow as you're beginning to see.

"Skyex 2020. Traffic. 2 o'clock. Two miles. Westbound. Altitude indicates one thousand three hundred."

The words "Altitude indicates" mean several things: The traffic has a transponder squawking Mode C (altitude) and the controller's term "indicating" is the clue that it is unverified...that is, the controller has not had a direct communication with the pilot of the airplane to verify that the Mode C actually matches actual altitude. This is normal for an airplane operating VFR and in areas where it's not necessary to be in ATC contact.

It takes longer to type it out, to explain, than is understood instantly by pilots and controllers. Pilot/controller speak is fast, and usually hard to understand by the layperson. There's a lot that needs context too....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The words "Altitude indicates" mean several things: The traffic has a transponder squawking Mode C (altitude) and the controller's term "indicating" is the clue that it is unverified...that is, the controller has not had a direct communication with the pilot of the airplane to verify that the Mode C actually matches actual altitude. This is normal for an airplane operating VFR and in areas where it's not necessary to be in ATC contact.

Obviously, I don't know anything about the standard procedures ATC's use to deal with incoming aircraft but it strikes me as odd that this ATC is calling another incoming aircraft to ID someone without trying to make contact himself. Wouldn't it be simpler to just call this unknown 757, at 1300 ft. and inquire if it were contemplating a landing?

Maybe it's just me.

reply to post by ipsedixit

Traffic. 2 o'clock. Two miles. Westbound.

Would be easier if you and I were in the same room, with a map, and the tape and it would make more sense.

It helps to try to visualize everything. As I recall, Flight 2020 was asked (and he complied) to land on Runway 33, to free up Runway 1 for the Delta to taxi back to the gate. Again, all very normal, we see that often, and makes perfect sense.

SO....Flight 2020, on a mostly North heading, is given traffic at his TWO O'CLOCK positon...that would be FURTHER North of his position, and ahead on his Right, and the unknown (but with a transponder, and since unknown was prolly squawking 1200 (VFR code), and was Westbound!

AA 77 was in another lacation, it was West of the airport, and was mostly Eastbound.

If you can picture it, makes sense, yes? Helps to use a map.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
SO....Flight 2020, on a mostly North heading, is given traffic at his TWO O'CLOCK positon...that would be FURTHER North of his position, and ahead on his Right, and the unknown (but with a transponder, and since unknown was prolly squawking 1200 (VFR code), and was Westbound!

AA 77 was in another lacation, it was West of the airport, and was mostly Eastbound.

If you can picture it, makes sense, yes? Helps to use a map.

I see what you are saying and have got it in my mind. It would be nice if we knew what happened to that unknown 757 at 1300 ft. If it is not AA77, that segment of the sky is about to get very crowded. There is not a lot of time for everything to get done.

According to the radar data Boone posted a few pages ago, Skyex 2020 must have had a ringside seat to the impact/flyover as it came in on runway 33. That would be the guy to interview in my books. Do you know if he has ever been interviewed?

I wrote the above post being under the impression AA77 had actually circled the Pentagon, but then I checked an NTSB presentation on the flight path of the aircraft and learned that, according to them, AA77 made a loop south of the Pentagon before descending for the finale.

So my observation about the "crowded sky" above is not pertinent.

posted by weedwhacker
SO....Flight 2020, on a mostly North heading, is given traffic at his TWO O'CLOCK positon...that would be FURTHER North of his position, and ahead on his Right, and the unknown (but with a transponder, and since unknown was prolly squawking 1200 (VFR code), and was Westbound!

AA 77 was in another lacation, it was West of the airport, and was mostly Eastbound.

If you can picture it, makes sense, yes? Helps to use a map.

posted by ipsedixit

I see what you are saying and have got it in my mind. It would be nice if we knew what happened to that unknown 757 at 1300 ft. If it is not AA77, that segment of the sky is about to get very crowded. There is not a lot of time for everything to get done.

According to the radar data Boone posted a few pages ago, Skyex 2020 must have had a ringside seat to the impact/flyover as it came in on runway 33. That would be the guy to interview in my books. Do you know if he has ever been interviewed?

Actually Flight 77 was still up near Ohio somewhere, and the decoy aircraft which Steve Chaconas saw was circling around Reagan.

At one point, the decoy aircraft which could have been a 757 was at the 2 o'clock position of Steve Chaconas looking towards Reagan Airport. His position should correspond fairly well to the position of Skyex 2020 flying north.

So ipsedixit, that might answer your question as to what happened to the 757 at 1300 feet.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f9d45290e91d.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by ipsedixit

That in itself is odd, isn't it?

Not necessarily. The aircraft could've been out of the tower's area of control and talking to a different sector or airport. Weedwhacker has a much better understanding than I, he may be able to explain it better.

Later Skyex says this aircraft is A 757!

SkyEx 2020 is not who you hear reporting it as a 757. That was another sector controller (KRANT) relaying information received from the C-130. No one knew what type of aircraft it was until the C-130 pilot identified it as a 757. That exchange can be heard here.

What aircraft did this turn out to be?

I can't say for sure, but Lynn Spencer talks about a banner towing aircraft in her book. And another commercial aircraft flew close enough to a "Cessna," in the same area, to be able to read its tail number. I believe these three separate accounts are all the same aircraft.

Do you know if he has ever been interviewed?

Not that I'm aware of.

reply to post by SPreston

Actually Flight 77 was still up near Ohio somewhere, and the decoy aircraft which Steve Chaconas saw was circling around Reagan.

Give up the fantasy, Preston.

There is no "decoy".

AA 77 was not still in Ohio.

I've posted the Flight Recorder link enough times, I suggest you read and learn.

Or, keep posting lies and misconceptions. The fairy tale is wearing thin, it is unsupportable, and only makes those who continue to spout it seem foolish, in view of all the overwhelming evidence that proves it to be bunk.

I just want to clear up one thing before I go back to the tape (and a transcriber's version of the battle of pork chop hill). Did AA77 completely circle the Pentagon or did it make a loop south of the Pentagon?

If you're interested in the close call between a commercial airliner and the Cessna, it can be heard at beginning of this recording.


ipsedixit, below is a link to Lotus ScreenCam screen capturing software. It contains radar data from Reagan Airport between 9 AM and 10 AM on September 11. All of the aircraft we are discussing can be viewed if you download and run the software.

aal77.com...

John Farmer received the software in one of his FOIA request. Linked from this page.

reply to post by Boone 870


Thanks for the links. I will look into these things after completing the transcription. When I get that done, I'll have a better ground work to ask intelligent questions.

reply to post by ipsedixit


No. It never made it to a point east to the Pentagon. It approached from the West and then made a right-hand turn 5 miles before the Pentagon.

I watched the CIT investigation video and i actually believe the testimony of the gas station attendant, and the mechanic they are civilians who were there on the day they have nothing to gain by or lose by being truthful.
In fact most of the eyewitness testimonies are from civilians.
I also found the testimony of the two policemen convincing.

I am going to believe eyewitness testimony over a bunch of idiots who were not there trying to maintain a veneer of misinformation and distraction for whatever reason.

a fly over means no boeing hitting the pentagon this is enough for a concerted attack on the research and researchers with the aim of sullying the information and trying to make it untrustworthy.

There is nothing more trustworthy than independent corroboration of facts by individuals with no connection other than the eyewitnessing of an event, ask any policeman.

reply to post by The X


Problem is.....you watched the CIT "investigation"....(redundant, isn't it?)

Ignoring all of the OTHER eyewitnesses who saw something completely different, that "crack investigation" came away with incorrect 'testimony' that they hang their entire "theory" on....and wave away the mountains of other evidence, including eyewitesses you actually SAW the Boeing impact the Pentagon....In fact, one of CIT's stars, Sean Boger, initially SAID that!

Better get all the facts, lest you appear as foolish as they.......