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: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
The archive.org Fox News footage of the Pentagon incident begins, according to their onscreen banner at 9:42 AM. The explosion took place, according to the 9/11 timeline compiled by Paul Thompson and others at 9:37 AM.

Here is the link to it:

www.archive.org...

This is from a stationary camera already in place. The TV commentator from Fox says that they don't know what happened but that they are trying to get people there to find out, then almost immediately word comes in about what happened.

The footage is either a Fox feed already set up on that spot or a feed from somebody else. It is clear that it would be almost unbelieveable for them not to have caught the alleged impact/flyover. Look for yourself.

The footage in question starts at 30:08 of the segment.

If that footage was making it to air at 9:42, the camera had to be recording before that, probably more than five minutes before. It would take the camera crew more than five minutes to get through to the producer to tell him that they had important footage.

They had to be shooting when the impact/flyover took place.

Were they tipped off to be on that spot? What were they doing there anyway?

Did they rewind to show it? No.


[edit on 19-8-2009 by ipsedixit]




posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
I would like to join Jthomas in requesting some actual evidence of a flyover instead of this endless barrage of rhetoric. Actually, the endless diatribe is quite useful in cementing the idea that the flyover idea is a hoax.

So evidence or more rhetoric...which will it be?

I find it rather silly to be arguing with people who have no evidence. If none is presented then I will go elsewhere as I recieve no joy from shooting fish in a barrel.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwiffler
I would like to join Jthomas in requesting some actual evidence of a flyover instead of this endless barrage of rhetoric.


I agree. The first place to ask for such evidence is from the government. They have the tapes. That'll settle it once and for all. Put an and to all these "outrageous conspiracy theories". Theories that we should never tolerate.

Well the government can put one of them to rest very easily. Release the tapes.

My question to the debunkers is, "Don't you ever get tired of sticking up for mass murderers?"



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

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.


Jthomas, you are testing my patience. You are not answering questions
and continue to dodge by asking new material to stall the required info.

I'll ask once again:

1. R. Roberts describes seeing an aircraft over the parking lot immediately
after hearing the explosion. This commercial airliner was just above the
poles over the south parking lot area at approximately 100 feet (just about
roof top level of the 77 foot high Pentagon). If this is not "AA77", what is
your explanation for a second commercial airliner in the area at the same
time of "impact"?

2. R. Turcios describes a commerical airliner pulling up over the street
sign. At 462 knots as last recorded by the FDR, do you understand that
it is IMPOSSIBLE for a 757 to pull up over the sign, descended and hit
the Pentagon? There is not enough distance for a large bulky airplane
to make such a move...I doubt a fighter jet could accomplish this at
462 knots.


Prove to me you can explain these points and yuo're not just an annoying
troll.

[edit on 20-8-2009 by turbofan]

[edit on 20-8-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
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.


turbo
I guess what I was trying to stress is the ability for anyone (especially those unfamiliar with different types of aircraft in general-- i e. the public. To accurately identify what hit the Pentagon.

What ever damaged the Pentagon ( aircraft or missile) flew over the heads of any witness at 500 mph,. According to the omission commission. That's about 8 seconds per mile. Two seconds for a quarter mile.( About four football fields ). 400 yards.
The witnesses were at ground level for the most part. Some driving autos.
The longest time frame I can allow for any witness to see anything of an object hurtling at that speed and at an altitude of fifty feet or so is about 1.7 seconds. You would have to be the most far away from the object to see it for the entire 1.7 seconds. You would be able to hear the object for about half that time if that--
so no audio warning of it's approach.
If you saw the object come from your left to your right. Right to left the same.
If the object flew directly over your head at 50 feet you would see nothing but the concrete or grass springing up to meet your ducking body on it's way down.
My thinking is that any witness to the devastation that Rumsfeld said was caused by a missile (and why should I doubt him) is quite suspect. And this is just one of many good reasons for a REINVESTIGATION and for the PTB to release the video footage of the crash they confiscated.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[edit on 20-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrwiffler
I would like to join Jthomas in requesting some actual evidence of a flyover instead of this endless barrage of rhetoric. Actually, the endless diatribe is quite useful in cementing the idea that the flyover idea is a hoax.

So evidence or more rhetoric...which will it be?

I find it rather silly to be arguing with people who have no evidence. If none is presented then I will go elsewhere as I recieve no joy from shooting fish in a barrel.



Wif
Where did you come from?
Uncle Sammy has the evidence you seek burried in his back yard.
We are digging it up---- grab a shovel dude.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Most of those people in stop and go traffic would be watching the car in front of them. When the plane appeared job one would still be making sure you didn't rear end someone or be rear ended by someone. Then and only then, you would look over at the big cloud of smoke, as the deisel generator in front of the building went up in sooty smoke that blocked the view of everything.

And last but not least you would say to yourself. "Geez, I seen everything. Dat big plane musta gone right inna da bildung. I seen it all! I seen it all! And hey, I work for CNN. Hey! I'm gonna be on TV!!" Honk. Honk. "Can't dese bastids drive?" Looks over. "I wonder what dose guys are doin wit dat cabbie and dat telephone pole. . . . I'm gonna be on TV!!!!!"



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


star lol
Holder back Knewt she's a rearin!
What has been the speculation on the tapes? any links?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by mrwiffler
 

I find it rather silly to be arguing with people who have no evidence. If none is presented then I will go elsewhere as I recieve no joy from shooting fish in a barrel.


Here's some evidence worth listening to. It is an audio recording of air traffic controllers working at Reagan National Tower as Flight 77 approached and impacted the Pentagon.

Skip to the six minute mark and you will hear a TRACON controller pointing out the approaching 757 to the tower controllers. Then, approximately 1 minute later, you will hear the tower controller say, "went into the Pentagon... looks like it went into the Pentagon."

He did not report a flyover.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

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.


What we all know, even though you won't ever admit it, is that no one in the whole entire world needs any video tapes to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon.


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.


So you claim endlessly but never can demonstrate any such thing. People belief in ghosts and angels, too, but never can demonstrate that they exist.


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.


Is that you're latest "suspicion?" It's too bad you forgot that the "flyover" claim means the "flyover and the "explosion" occurred simultaneously.

Ooops! Another silly "Truther" claim bites the dust!




posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Ooops! Another silly "Truther" claim bites the dust!


No tapes. No peace from the truth movement.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
"went into the Pentagon... looks like it went into the Pentagon."

He did not report a flyover.


Strictly speaking he did not report that it went into the Pentagon either. The ATC said ". . . looks like . . ." Well that's what it was meant to look like.

The guy on the loading dock on the other side of the Pentagon thought there were two planes, because he could see one of them flying away over the parking lot on that side. Maybe the ATC had his eyes on the massive cloud of smoke coming from the diesel generator fire in front of the alleged impact area.

In any case. Let's just do away with all these "ourageous consipiracy theories" and release the tapes. That'll clear the whole thing up.

Uh, maybe that's the problem. This is an event that the Bush administration and now the Obama administration, never wants cleared up.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by mrwiffler
I would like to join Jthomas in requesting some actual evidence of a flyover instead of this endless barrage of rhetoric.


I agree. The first place to ask for such evidence is from the government. They have the tapes. That'll settle it once and for all. Put an and to all these "outrageous conspiracy theories". Theories that we should never tolerate.

Well the government can put one of them to rest very easily. Release the tapes.


We don't needs the tapes to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Stop dodging that fact.


My question to the debunkers is, "Don't you ever get tired of sticking up for mass murderers?"


Since you have demonstrated that the "government" is guilty, you are just dreaming.

Gosh, it's so easy to debunk you 9/11 Deniers.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
We don't needs the tapes to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Stop dodging that fact.


Strictly speaking we didn't need the multiple angles and endless replays of the impact on the South Tower either, but we got them. We got the only available footage of the impact on the North Tower and that was endlessly replayed as soon as it was available. And then weeks or months later we got to see a barely recognizable, inadvertently captured shot of the North Tower impact in a corner of a film by a tourist, who wasn't even shooting in the direction of the tower.

"And now for something completely different."

Despite multiple confiscated videotapes of the Pentagon impact, nothing is released until months later, when we get to see five edited frames of a video from a poor vantage point with the wrong date on them.

Maybe you and the people who have coffee and crullers with you in your debunker "boiler room" don't see anything odd about the contrast in approaches betwen the WTC events and the Pentagon event, but people in the truth movement think it's strange.

They think the government is hiding something.

[edit on 20-8-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Most of those people in stop and go traffic would be watching the car in front of them. When the plane appeared job one would still be making sure you didn't rear end someone or be rear ended by someone. Then and only then, you would look over at the big cloud of smoke, as the deisel generator in front of the building went up in sooty smoke that blocked the view of everything.


So, like tezz and others, you're clairvoyant, too? Amazing how many clairvoyants we have amongst you 9/11 Truthers who have this quite amazing ability to know what hundreds of individual people in their cars as drivers and passengers are looking at, or not looking at.

Sorry, ipsedixit, you know for a fact that you cannot make any such claim. What we do know is that the probability is virtually zero that NO ONE would see a jet fly over and away from the Pentagon out of hundreds of people in and out of their cars, people stuck in freeway traffic and on the bridges with many having the jet and explosion directly in their line of sight, in the Pentagon parking lots, with the jet at full throttle, loud as hell, and low.

So, you all and CIT have lots of witnesses seeing a jet approach the Pentagon and CIT claims it flew over and away from the Pentagon like this:



...and you want us to believe no one would see this jet fly over and away from the Pentagon?

Gosh.

Come back down to Planet Earth, ipsedixit.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by jthomas
Ooops! Another silly "Truther" claim bites the dust!


No tapes. No peace from the truth movement.


Then we can continue to laugh at you.

By the way, you got the tape of the parking lot video and you accept it, correct?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by jthomas
We don't needs the tapes to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Stop dodging that fact.


Strictly speaking we didn't need the multiple angles and endless replays of the impact on the South Tower either, but we got them. We got the only available footage of the impact on the North Tower and that was endlessly replayed as soon as it was available. And then weeks or months later we got to see a barely recognizable, inadvertently captured shot of the North Tower impact in a corner of a film by a tourist, who wasn't even shooting in the direction of the tower.

"And now for something completely different."

Despite multiple confiscated videotapes of the Pentagon impact, nothing is released until months later, when we get to see five edited frames of a video from a poor vantage point with the wrong date on them.

Maybe you and the people who have coffee and crullers with you in your debunker "boiler room" don't see anything odd about the contrast in approaches betwen the WTC events and the Pentagon event, but people in the truth movement think it's strange.

They think the government is hiding something.


ALL 9/11 Truthers see a conspiracy everywhere they turn. That's the only reason your movement exists. That's the reason your movement is factually known as the 9/11 Denial Movement.

What you don't want to admit is that one does not need video tapes to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon, AA11 hit WTC 1, and UA175 hit WTC 2.

As long as you shut out reality and refuse to admit that fact you'll just continue be laughed at in the real world.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
No tapes. No peace from the truth movement.

Then we can continue to laugh at you.

By the way, you got the tape of the parking lot video and you accept it, correct?


Let's not forget the doubletree video, which also shows no flyover. Surely they accept that as well, especially since the hotel is not government controlled.

But we know what will happen, even if they had a hundred different clips of the jet hitting the Pentagon as the witnesses all claim, the CL's (conspiracy loonies) would call them all fake, cgi, etc ,etc. We know this because they do the same things with the WTC footage, there is no reason to believe it would ever stop, witnesses be damned.

Now, if all or even most of the witnesses were saying they saw a flyover instead of an impact, then I would be there with them clamoring for some answers. But this is not the case, and is why no CL will ever convince them to release anything for their own appeasement, since it will never change. They will come up with new theories that they still can't prove, and of course go no where with those also.

It's sort of sad to see that some people cannot accept that we live in a world where people do hijack planes and are willing to kill themselves and others for their religious beliefs, but at the same time seem to blindly accept the notion that their very government will do that very thing.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas


...and you want us to believe no one would see this jet fly over and away from the Pentagon?


If you think it takes a clairvoyant to assume that people driving cars will be watching traffic around them, things like basic arithmetic must seem like quantum mechanics to you.

Given the choice of watching the traffic around them and watching a big explosion too or watching traffic and a plane that they couldn't see behind a cloud of smoke, I guess virtually everyone would opt for traffic and big boom.

The guy on the Pentagon loading dock didn't have to watch traffic and was on the other side of the smoke cloud. Consequently he had a clear view of the plane flying away over the parking lot on his side of the building.

Incidentally, if that plane was flying low enough over the parking lot on the side opposite the alleged impact zone (not like in your embedded picture but closer to treetop level), it is very possible that view of it would be blocked by the roofline of the building anyway or lost in the cityscape clutter in the backround.

I've seen the Sheraton video. Useless. The Citgo security video is useless too. The video frames with the curling smoke trail look fake. Incidentally, why isn't the curling smoke cloud visible as a curling smoke cloud in the first series of Pentagon frames released?

Maybe the two sets of frames were faked by different people. Maybe the left hand didn't know what the other left hand was doing.



[edit on 20-8-2009 by ipsedixit]

[edit on 20-8-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
Now, if all or even most of the witnesses were saying they saw a flyover instead of an impact, then I would be there with them clamoring for some answers.


Of course you would. This is the definition of person as sheep. You can't think for yourself, but if a large group of people were moving in any given direction, you would be right with them. That's the kind of person you are, in your own words.


It's sort of sad to see that some people cannot accept that we live in a world where people do hijack planes and are willing to kill themselves and others for their religious beliefs, but at the same time seem to blindly accept the notion that their very government will do that very thing.


I accept the fact that we live in a world as described by you. No problem. But we have to take each event on a case by case basis and evaluate each separately. No-one conducts a police investigation the way George Bush investigated 9/11.

In the case of the government, I think they acted for strategic reasons relating to securing energy supplies and greased the skids and got cooperation for the 9/11 operation by holding out opportunities for financial rewards for going along with the program.

[edit on 20-8-2009 by ipsedixit]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join