Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Well, OK. I'd never heard of "Tom Flocco" before, nor "Hank Schwarz". What little I could find was not, shall we say, very complimentary. "Flocco" seems sketchiest, but this darn hotel computer won't let me go to his site...it's content-blocked for some reason.

Perhaps others have heard this "A-3" story?? Since it was dated some years ago, I'm wondiering if it's already been proven false.

Rest of it, the story, seems quite a reach. For instance, when it stated they had "a billion dollars" to modify the A-3, sure that was hyperbole, but the intent was money was no problem, correct?

Well, if they had that technology, to retrofit an airplane that was basically 1950s-era, why didn't "they" instead grab an old B757 from a boneyard?? By 2001 there were quite a few retired airframes out in the desert, including some B757s. THAT way, the parts would match perfectly!!!


Same thing, no missile needed, full of fuel, "remote control" into target, and mission accomplished. Basically, except for the complication of trying to make it remote controlled when it wasn't originally designed to be, it seems simpler than the "plan" with an A-3.

Except, the whole THOUGHT of it stinks, the very thought of our own Government concocting such a scheme and actually doing it smacks of a very, very implausible scenario. And, again, the narrative from "Flocco" just raises suspicions all over the place. It doesn't pass the "logic test".

Something else about remote control --- it's not as easy as you might think. Pilots are used to sensory cues, when flying. Full-motion simulators come close, but they do it by tricking the inner ear.

The amount of classified abilities that may exist? They are showing the UAVs now, bweing flown in the Middle East, in surveillance activities, forward support and such. Are they weaponized too? Probably. But, I just cannot imagine anyone being given the order to conduct the attacks against the Pentagon that day. Again, it just doesn't wash.




posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
I don't know why anyone would take the fly-over theory seriously when scores of credible witnesses saw the plane actually hit the building.

Look for this document at; 'http://911review.com/index.html':

"To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT's PentaCon 'Magic Show'"

It's pretty hard, I believe, to refute the arguments in the above mentioned paper.


Watch out for the other site 911review.org ...that's where you'll find rubbish like the idea's espoused by Judy Woods.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I agree, Hoffman is not my "leader."

Nor did I ever join any "group" called "the truthers" or even "the twoofers."

If you say something I don't personally agree with, or are missing information, etc., I don't care what your name is, what agency you work for or how many hits your website gets.

I have a feeling the people convinced otherwise would have also had no problem with racism and slavery back in the day, being able to lump individual people together so easily with their massive intellects, as if they can instantly read into all our souls. They are "all the same," they say. All the same. Massive intellectual processes going on here.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mrwiffler
 

"To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT's PentaCon 'Magic Show'"


Ms. Ashley hands CIT their hat in that article. Here's the link.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by mrwiffler
 


Jim Hoffman, Webmaster and Senior Editor, Gregg Roberts, Associate Editor, Victoria Ashley, Research Consultant, and Jan Hoyer, Outreach Coordinator are your leaders?

Thank you for making that clear.

It seems that much of their material is quite good. However it might ruin your day when you find out that Hoffman and company are not duhbunkers nor pseudoskeptics nor government loyalists such as yourself. Nor are they people too lazy to do exhaustive research before opening their mouths and displaying their ignorance.



I don't know why anyone would take the fly-over theory seriously when scores of credible witnesses saw the plane actually hit the building.


Unfortunately your fellow duhbunkers have been unable to find and interview and videotape (thereby proving they actually exist) these scores of credible witnesses (sometimes presented as 104 witnesses and sometimes presented as hundreds of witnesses) who allegedly saw the aircraft knocking down the light poles, or the light pole sticking out of the windshield, or the engine creating the smoke trail across the lawn, or the wings folding back like a cartoon mech robot, or the instantaneous materialization of aircraft parts long after the explosions at the Pentagon, like they were teleported down by the starship Enterprise.

It seems the scores of credible witnesses have all gone into deep cover to escape prosecution, or perhaps they are just the creations of a lying Mainstream News Media. Of course some of them had no names, and some were miles away working at their jobs, and some were at the train station at Reagan where they could not have seen a doggone thing, and some were 2nd and 3rd party witnesses if they existed at all. Maybe the effort was just too discouraging for the JREF duhbunkers and that is why they gave up looking for the scores of credible witnesses to heroically salvage the self-destructing 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY.

Nope. No sign of a shattered aircraft here


Magically flew right through these undamaged unmelted cable spools


No sign of a 90 ton aircraft here either



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Hey Donny, I don't support the missile theory but I've seen video of
large missiles that look like small airplanes depending on distance
and speed. The eye can be easily fooled that's for sure...and that's
all I'll say about that.

Anyone using CIT's witnesses as impacting the Pentagon must take
their full testimony into account.

I saw mention of Sean Boger. Boger states he saw the aircraft banking.

The FDR does not support banking.

The official damage path cannot have a plane banking.

Anyone who understands the aerodyamics even slightly will know that
even a slight bank at 500+ MPH in a 757 will take the plane so far off
course, it could not align itself with all 5 light poles and create the damage
path through the Pentagon.

The OCT believers have a lot to explain if they use people like Sean Boger'
s
testimony, the NTSB released FDR and official damage.

NON of them make sense together.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 



like they were teleported down by the starship Enterprise.



Like Flight 77 activating its Klingon cloaking technology after overflying the western wall of the Pentagon?

CIT: one Star Trek episode shy of claiming "Klingon cloaking technology."



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Spreston, it might be helpful if you actually read the paper I've cited. Until you address the entirety of the evidence you will continue to make large blunders in your reasoning.

Boone 870, very well put (Ms. Ashley hands CIT their hat in that article.)

For any serious researcher the conclusion that CIT is a miss-information organisation is undeniable.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Anyone using CIT's witnesses as impacting the Pentagon must take
their full testimony into account.


Agreed.



Boger states he saw the aircraft banking.

The FDR does not support banking.


Either Boger is incorrect, or he saw a bank at the very last second, AFTER the FDR stopped??



Anyone who understands the aerodyamics even slightly will know that
even a slight bank at 500+ MPH in a 757 will take the plane so far off
course, it could not align itself with all 5 light poles and create the damage
path through the Pentagon.



Well...I happen to understand a bit of aerodynamics.


Here is an airplane turning radius calculator.

(For the non-pilots, the radius of turn is directly related to speed and angle of bank.)

Two examples I got:

From turbofan's post, a "slight bank" (5 degrees) - using 500 MPH, or 435 Kt---

Turn radius is -- 31.6NM
Time to change heading 90 degrees -- 410 seconds

If we bank at 10 degrees, values approximately halved, as you would expect.

BUT, you can play with the calculator yourselves. No need to worry about the stall speed inputs, not relevant.
_____________________________
tags




[edit on 19 August 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

posted by mrwiffler

Spreston, it might be helpful if you actually read the paper I've cited. Until you address the entirety of the evidence you will continue to make large blunders in your reasoning.



Did you bother to read it? I read her nonsense a few weeks ago. What do Dick Eastman or Adam Larson have to do with the CIT eyewitnesses or the Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo flight path? Or professional liar John Farmer and Thierry Meyssan?

She creates strawman arguments and rightfully rips them to shreds. She even refuses to mention the Arlington National Cemetery eyewitnesses, who were all previously interviewed by the Center for Military History in 2001.



Why would Victoria Ashley pretend the most critical eyewitnesses to the actual aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo do not exist? Phony phony phony.



I will waste no more time on Victoria Ashley.




posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   

posted by mrwiffler

Spreston, it might be helpful if you actually read the paper I've cited. Until you address the entirety of the evidence you will continue to make large blunders in your reasoning.



Dare tell mrwiffler; you knew nothing of the ANC eyewitnesses did you?

Another know-it-all who has never done a lick of research.


Google Video Link



Google Video Link



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Jpreston, you might benefit from being specific. Here is a comment from one of the witnesses who's edited interview was used by CIT to promote their theory:

The Statements of Sgt. William Lagasse AFPN; June 24, 2003
www.apfn.net...

"I live with what I saw everyday of my life, It has taken a long time to deal with the images, screams and anger I felt that day, to be honest your website angered me to the point I wanted to just curse and rant and rave but I decided this would be much more helpful in quelling misconceptions."

Lagasse is one of a majority of witnesses who directly contradict CIT's flyover idea. And as you can see he was outraged at the lie's made by the CIT group.

Below is a link to 200 witnesses who contradict CIT. How many witnesses do CIT have? Not very many.

arabesque911.blogspot.com...

So 200 people hallucinated? Or maybe they were all plants.

Good god, please get a grip.

And your assumptions as to what I've read are amusing. Unlike yourself I have addressed both sides of the argument.



[edit on 19-8-2009 by mrwiffler]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Hey Donny,
Sorry my reply became to time consuming catch you in the am.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by jthomasCIT has NO eyewitnesses to any jet flying over and away from the pentagon. neither do you, turbofan.


Is that right?


Of course. You have known it's right for a few years now. Why deny it?


Didn't Turcios say he saw the plane pull up over the sign?


He didn't say he saw any jet "fly over and away from the Pentagon," did he? But you know that.


What about Rosie? Did he not state he saw a commerical airliner over the
south parking lot immediately after the explosion?!


Nope, ditto. You know that, too.


Where the hell did that commercial airliner come from if it wasn't a fly-over?


We ALL know where it "came from", don't we?

And we all know that there are NO eyewitnesses or reports of any jet" flying over and away from the Pentagon." You're persistent dodging of that fact gives you away.



Then you should easily be able to provide the eyewitness statements and media reports ... and you refuse to.



CIT has done a fine job of this and I'm spreading their news.


As you just demonstrated again, you have NO evidence of any jet "flying over and away from the Pentagon" as you and CIT keep claiming.



LOL. You run away from me every time.



Run away from you? I don't believe you have the right person in mind.


Sure you do.


I'll debate you live on radio/tv/phone any time any day. Set it up.


There's nothing anyone has to debate. Just present the statements and reports from those amongst the hundreds all around the Pentagon - on every side - in an excellent position to see a flyover.

Why can't you get off your butt and do such a simple thing to support your claims, turbofan? You don't have top be afraid of evidence and the truth - really!





[edit on 19-8-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

He didn't say he saw any jet "fly over and away from the Pentagon," did he? But you know that.


Why would the 'terrorist' pull-up if he was going into the lower two floors
of the Pentagon?

Do you understand that a 757 cannot pull up over the sign, and back
down to strike the second floor at 460+ knots?

I doubt a fighter jet could even attempt such a task that close from
the road sign.

You do understand this , correct?



What about Rosie? Did he not state he saw a commerical airliner over the
south parking lot immediately after the explosion?!

Nope, ditto. You know that, too.


Nope, what? Did Rosie say he saw a commercial airliner over the
parking lot, or not?



We ALL know where it "came from", don't we?



We all know you're beating around the bush now. Where did this
commerical aircraft come from directly after the explosion if not
from the fly-over?

Explain, or please stop bothering me.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by mrwiffler
 


Jim Hoffman, Webmaster and Senior Editor, Gregg Roberts, Associate Editor, Victoria Ashley, Research Consultant, and Jan Hoyer, Outreach Coordinator are your leaders?

Thank you for making that clear.

It seems that much of their material is quite good. However it might ruin your day when you find out that Hoffman and company are not duhbunkers nor pseudoskeptics nor government loyalists such as yourself. Nor are they people too lazy to do exhaustive research before opening their mouths and displaying their ignorance.



I don't know why anyone would take the fly-over theory seriously when scores of credible witnesses saw the plane actually hit the building.


Unfortunately your fellow duhbunkers have been unable to find and interview and videotape (thereby proving they actually exist) these scores of credible witnesses (sometimes presented as 104 witnesses and sometimes presented as hundreds of witnesses) who allegedly saw the aircraft knocking down the light poles, or the light pole sticking out of the windshield, or the engine creating the smoke trail across the lawn, or the wings folding back like a cartoon mech robot, or the instantaneous materialization of aircraft parts long after the explosions at the Pentagon, like they were teleported down by the starship Enterprise.

It seems the scores of credible witnesses have all gone into deep cover to escape prosecution, or perhaps they are just the creations of a lying Mainstream News Media. Of course some of them had no names, and some were miles away working at their jobs, and some were at the train station at Reagan where they could not have seen a doggone thing, and some were 2nd and 3rd party witnesses if they existed at all. Maybe the effort was just too discouraging for the JREF duhbunkers and that is why they gave up looking for the scores of credible witnesses to heroically salvage the self-destructing 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY.

Nope. No sign of a shattered aircraft here


Magically flew right through these undamaged unmelted cable spools


No sign of a 90 ton aircraft here either




Hey, SPreston, when is CIT, that Crack Investigation Team, going to do their job and give us those statements from all those people all around the Pentagon, you know the hundreds I keep reminding you about who were in position to see that screaming, low flying jet, fly over and away from the Pentagon?

You DO know that none of you could ever get a real job as "investigators" without doing your job, don't you?

Well, maybe as stars in a modern Laurel & Hardy comedy.

Where are those statements, SPreston? WHAT in creation is taking you so long?



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   

posted by turbofan

Why would the 'terrorist' pull-up if he was going into the lower two floors
of the Pentagon?

Do you understand that a 757 cannot pull up over the sign, and back
down to strike the second floor at 460+ knots?



In the jthomas world of cartoons and photoshopping evidence of capital crimes; an aircraft can pull-up and pull-down at the same time.

By the way jthomas is claiming that the Pentagon parking lot security video (s?) (and logically the leaked still frames which form his avatar) does not show anything hitting the Pentagon.

Of course jthomas is in agreement with us and with CIT, as we all claim that the poorly photoshopped security videos not only do not show an aircraft or anything else hitting the Pentagon, but also that the actual aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and could not possibly have struck the 5 downed light poles nor created the official damage path through the Pentagon interior to the Exit Hole in the C-Ring wall.

Thank you jthomas for clearing that up.


posted by jthomas

Isn't it interesting that I have never claimed that the "security camera video shows any aircraft hitting the Pentagon." Just so we're clear about that, I want you to show everyone here any post I have made on any forum in which I have said that the security camera video shows anything hitting the Pentagon.

If you can't do that, then you will issue a public retraction right here, correct? What's that, you can't? C'mon, be a sport, just try.


In fact, as we rational people have said for years, one cannot conclude by looking at the security camera video that anything hit the Pentagon.




posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by jthomas

He didn't say he saw any jet "fly over and away from the Pentagon," did he? But you know that.


Why would the 'terrorist' pull-up if he was going into the lower two floors
of the Pentagon?

Do you understand that a 757 cannot pull up over the sign, and back
down to strike the second floor at 460+ knots?

I doubt a fighter jet could even attempt such a task that close from
the road sign.

You do understand this , correct?


You DO understand that you would then have positive evidence of a flyover, don't you? Of course you do.

But we both know you cannot possibly admit it.


We all know you're beating around the bush now. Where did this
commerical aircraft come from directly after the explosion if not
from the fly-over?


WHAT "commercial aircraft" flew over and away from the Pentagon directly after the explosion, turbofan?

Speak up, man! How many times do I have to ask you for the eyewitness statements from those amongst the hundreds of people on all sides of the Pentagon who saw any jet "fly over and away from the Pentagon?"

Don't be scared, turbofan. Your amongst friends hungry for the evidence you don't want to give them. Strange.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by turbofan

Why would the 'terrorist' pull-up if he was going into the lower two floors
of the Pentagon?

Do you understand that a 757 cannot pull up over the sign, and back
down to strike the second floor at 460+ knots?



In the jthomas world....


We await for your evidence for your claims that any jet "flew over and away from the Pentagon."

Your "Truther" friends wonder why you can't give them the evidence.




posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
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.


The evidence has never been presented. I'll give you that.

But the evidence is out there . . . in the hands of the government in the form of the hundred or so videotapes that they are estimated to have confiscated of the flyover.

Or maybe it's not out there. Maybe you are right.

Anyway, I think it is time you debunkers got off your butts and demanded that the government do away with all this CIT nonsense and release the tapes!

Then you can embed them here and have one last belly laugh at CIT.

Except it ain't ever gonna happen. The people who have the tapes won't release them because they are perps.

I'll tell you another thing. Five minutes after the explosion at the Pentagon, a Fox television crew were rolling on it from a vantage point where they had a camera on a tripod with a panoramic view of the building, in great position to film a flyover. It's in the archive.org collection.

I find it just a little strange that they were in that spot at that time, all set up but didn't catch the alleged "impact". Fishy, fishy, fishy.

I'll bet they did film a flyover, but we'll never see it.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by ipsedixit]






top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join