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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
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.


Your post is the definition of ignorance and extreme illogical bias. Because you think one person may have believed he saw a "flyover", vs. all the others that didn't, and the lack of any evidence that this "flyover" occurred that you are the better person?

Ha! What you fail to realize is that you are actually the sheep, you are the kind of person the CIT and other CL's love to target with their irrational thinking and silly theories. Sorry, but if you actually believe in this junk then you are exactly what you accuse me of being. You are going against all logic and reason to blindly believe in a theory of which there is no proof, and of which the witnesses themselves disprove.

You are not thinking for yourself, you are merely repeating what they have already been saying.

Have fun with the herd.




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

Originally 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?

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.


Actually, you are not answering my question and never have. I am testing your ability to provide the evidence you refuse to provide.


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"?


And I will repeat once again. This time I expect you to stop dodging and present the statements I've ask you to. IF there was a flyover, there would have been scores of eyewitnesses amongst the hundreds of people all around the Pentagon in a position to see the flyover you all claim, to wit:



See how easy that jet is to see, turbofan?


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.


And I repeat again that if a flyover took place then provide me the eyewitness statements testifying to a "jet flying over and away from the Pentagon."

Now, turbofan, we're all tired with your evasions. It's been obvious for a long time that you can't provide any positive evidence of any flyover. Get to work or admit that you cannot support your claims.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I can see the plane plain.
Is that date on your avitar the same thing?
A real smoke and mirrors guy ehh!
Is that pic on your tar the whole song and dance for your camp?
Lights out scout.



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



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

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.


Seriously?? Do you really want to pick THAT particular nit?

From the National Airport Tower cab one cannot see the Pentagon directly. Terrain and intervening buildings prevent that. HOWEVER, an AIr Traffic Controller certainly would know where the Pentagon is located. You DO realize there is daily traffic in and out of the Pentagon?? Helicopters, to/from the WH, Andrews, etcetera. Those choppers TALK to ATC...even Marine One has to call the DCA Tower for coordination before liftoff from the South Lawn! An airport control tower has operational jurisdiction and authority for a five statute mile radius, and up to 3000 AGL, typically.

SO....an experienced Controller, familiar with the area, sees a large passenger jet flying low, towards where he KNOWS the Pentagon is located, then sees an explosion of either flame and/or black smoke...isn't it logical to conclude? Well, I guess he could have said "looks like it hit the Citgo station"....but I doubt his mind would jump to the conclusion that Citgo was a target.

But, anyway....why is everyone not getting the point? ALL EYES in the Tower were on the AA77 jet as it approached, and NO ONE saw it "fly over"...not visually, not on Radar. Do you really think several trained observers would miss seeing something like that????

Now, your own words:



The guy on the loading dock on the other side of the Pentagon thought there were two planes...


Emphasis mine. He "thought" he saw something, in reality he is incorrect.




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.



How do you reach this 'logic'? A diesel generator, compared to a massive explosion and fire? From an airplane full of Jet-A?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

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


posted by ipsedixit
No tapes. No peace from the truth movement.


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


No jthomas. We do not accept the parking lot security videos.

We, just the same as you, see the photoshopped parking lot security videos as showing absolutely nothing flying in above the lawn and impacting the Pentagon.

No 757, no A-3 Skyhawk, no Flight 77, no missile, no demonic grinning Hani Hanjour, no Global Hawk, no Tomahawk, no flying camel, nothing.

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, 20 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

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


posted by ipsedixit
No tapes. No peace from the truth movement.


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


No jthomas. We do not accept the parking lot security videos.


I know. You wouldn't accept any video.


We, just the same as you, see the photoshopped parking lot security videos as showing absolutely nothing flying in above the lawn and impacting the Pentagon.


My avatar shows Balsamo's cockpit view from the "flyover" jet in the top photo and what it would look like from the position of the security camera in the bottom two. You must admit, it's a pretty darn good representation of Balsamo's an CIT's claim, isn't it?

There's no denying how visible a flyover jet would be, is there?

So, when are you going to get around to presenting any eyewitness statements of your flyover jet "flying over and away from the Pentagon," Herr Preston?

Oh, that's right, you have none.




posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by jthomas
 


I can see the plane plain.


It's quite easy to see, isn't it? Imagine being there.


Is that date on your avitar the same thing?


The date is irrelevant.

The top photo is from Rob Balsamo's animation showing a pilot's view from the cockpit of the so-called "flyover" jet as it started to climb over the Pentagon. Got that?

The bottom two photos represent what Balsamo's "flyover" would have looked like from the position of the parking lot security camera as the jet approached the Pentagon, and the "explosion" occurred as the jet passed over. I simply used the existing photos of the explosion from that perspective to show how easy it would be to see CIT's and Balsamo's, SPreston's, and turbofan's "flyover" jet.

CIT's photo shows the same thing about a second later.

Yet these amateur investigators can't come up with any eyewitnesses to "their" flyover.

That's easy to understand, isn't it, Donny?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

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.


Pay attention. You are the one who claims to know what hundreds of people would be looking at or not looking at. You are the one that makes the excuse that no one would see a flyover.

You know your claim is perfectly ridiculous so just retract it and move on.

Sheesh...



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by jthomas
 


I can see the plane plain.


It's quite easy to see, isn't it? Imagine being there.


Is that date on your avitar the same thing?


The date is irrelevant.

The top photo is from Rob Balsamo's animation showing a pilot's view from the cockpit of the so-called "flyover" jet as it started to climb over the Pentagon. Got that?

The bottom two photos represent what Balsamo's "flyover" would have looked like from the position of the parking lot security camera as the jet approached the Pentagon, and the "explosion" occurred as the jet passed over. I simply used the existing photos of the explosion from that perspective to show how easy it would be to see CIT's and Balsamo's, SPreston's, and turbofan's "flyover" jet.

CIT's photo shows the same thing about a second later.

Yet these amateur investigators can't come up with any eyewitnesses to "their" flyover.

That's easy to understand, isn't it, Donny?




Ahh not really. It looks like your horse threw you.
Jump up on the back of mine and let's go find those damn missing tapes together Kemo Sabe.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

What you fail to realize is that you are actually the sheep, you are the kind of person the MSM and other .gov love to target with their irrational thinking and silly theories. Sorry, but if you actually believe in this junk then you are exactly what you accuse me of being. You are going against all logic and reason to blindly believe in a theory of which there is very little proof, and of which many witnesses themselves disprove.


Edited for accuracy.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas


Is that date on your avitar the same thing?


The date is irrelevant.


That's cutting edge jurisprudence in debunker circles. Dates are now irrelevant. At least on video evidence.

Nope, nothing is going to raise an iota of suspicion in jthomas's mind.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Damn NWO agents... they are doctoring a darn video for the world to see, and forgot to put the right date of the attack on there!

FOOLS!



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomasActually, you are not answering my question and never have. I am testing your ability to provide the evidence you refuse to provide.


I gave you two testiomonies from people who were on site. One video,
one audio, plus the other CIT witnesses which support a different path,
and speed for the plane.

Many of these witnesses describe a bank, and all of them drew a similar
flight path. What is the probablilty of 13 disconnected witnesses DRAWING
A SIMILAR flight path if the event never happened?




See how easy that jet is to see, turbofan?


It's not easy unless you assume the plane continued to ascended!
As stated by Rosie, the aircraft was low over the light poles in the
parking lot, it was NOT ascending high into the sky!

Did you see how low and level the plane comes in over the Pentagon
in the NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT CONFERENCE video? See the 45 second
marker: Do you see how it disappears immediately after is passes the roof level from the camera vantage point?

Here is a photo in case you're too proud to view the video:


Now add a fireball to the equation and you've fooled many bystanders!

I've answered all of your quesitons. Now please answer mine!
What COMMERCIAL AIRLINER are Turcious and Rosevelt describing
as 'pulling up over the sign' and 'over the south parking lot directly after
the explosion'?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Damn NWO agents... they are doctoring a darn video for the world to see, and forgot to put the right date of the attack on there!

FOOLS!


Thankyou Cameron. I knew you had more on the ball than some others in the carpool at Langley.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Turbo have you ever been around the Pentagon in the morning? Or in DC at all? At Arlington National Cemetery? I doubt it.

I have been there and got to see the sights an sounds of DC. After driving past the Pentagon numerous times, going to Arlington and being by the Lincoln Memorial, I have seen so many vantage points of the Pentagon where a fly-over would have been most clear. The numbers of people, sightseers, workers, etc around would have seen a fly-over from as far away as the Lincoln Memorial and from General Lee's house on the hill in Arlington. Have you seen the crowds there? Hell just driving by the Pentagon in the morning, the numbers of cars there, there should have been hundreds of eyewitnesses to any so-called flyover. Looking directly from the back of the Lincoln Memorial you get a great view of the Pentagon and any planes flying over it. Jefferson Memorial, the FDR Memorial Park, etc etc, there are so many vantage points around the Pentagon that would have had a clear shot of the fly-over, and yet, no one has come forward. Why is that?

But so far, you have what? Two twisted eyewitness accounts that really dont say anything of a fly-over? That vs hundreds of eyewitnesses that saw the crash/impact and no mention of any flyovers.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
I know the above post wasn't addressed to me, but GenRadek makes a good point that I want to put my two cents worth into. Suppose you were in the vicinity he is referring to on the morning of 9/11 when the incident took place. You are driving along and suddenly you hear a loud noise or your eye is caught by rising smoke.

What do you do? You zero in on the smoke. What the heck is happening? You crane for a better look.

In that space of time the plane is not over the Pentagon anymore.

Yeah, you might see an airplane near the Pentagon. It would probably look like it just took off from Reagan National if you even gave it that much thought.

To see this overflight you would have to have a good panoramic view of the Pentagon and probably not be driving at the time. I'd be willing to bet there are people who saw just that but didn't realize the significance of it.

By now they probably know it would pay them to keep their mouths shut.



[edit on 20-8-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadekBut so far, you have what? Two twisted eyewitness accounts that really dont say anything of a fly-over? That vs hundreds of eyewitnesses that saw the crash/impact and no mention of any flyovers.


You're so full of it! Two twisted accounts?

Gen, please do the math:

What is the probablity of 13 people drawing a similar flight path of an
event that never happened?

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?

What aircraft was Turcious referencing when he said he saw it PULL UP
OVER THE SIGN?

Those are your three questions. Answer them please.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

What is the probablity of 13 people drawing a similar flight path of an
event that never happened?


Well, since there's about 200 eyewitnesses that say otherwise... 13/200 ~ 6.5%



What aircraft is Roberts talking about that appears immediately after
the explosion?


The C-130



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by ipsedixit

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.


Seriously?? Do you really want to pick THAT particular nit?


Yes. He's hedging his statement in order to be more accurate or perhaps to avoid uttering a lie.


SO....an experienced Controller, familiar with the area, sees a large passenger jet flying low, towards where he KNOWS the Pentagon is located, then sees an explosion of either flame and/or black smoke...isn't it logical to conclude? Well, I guess he could have said "looks like it hit the Citgo station"....but I doubt his mind would jump to the conclusion that Citgo was a target.

But, anyway....why is everyone not getting the point? ALL EYES in the Tower were on the AA77 jet as it approached, and NO ONE saw it "fly over"...not visually, not on Radar. Do you really think several trained observers would miss seeing something like that????


My understanding is that when the ATCs "saw" it (on radar) fly into the vicinity they thought it must be a military fighter jet because of the manouver it was executing. When it was on final approach to the accounting department it was at treetop level and probably wasn't seen by them.


Now, your own words:



The guy on the loading dock on the other side of the Pentagon thought there were two planes...


Emphasis mine. He "thought" he saw something, in reality he is incorrect.


This is just a poor choice of words on my part. He saw a plane flying low over the parking lot on his side of the building. He is in no doubt about that. He assumed there must have been two planes later, when people started telling him that a plane had crashed into the building.

Similarly people who may have seen the flyover would assume from the news reports of the day that the plane they had seen fly over the building had nothing to do with the incident being described in the media.

CIT has made it clear that the C130 in the area may well have been there to further this element of confusion concerning the number of planes over the Pentagon that day and their relationship to the "attack."



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.



How do you reach this 'logic'? A diesel generator, compared to a massive explosion and fire? From an airplane full of Jet-A?


You are a victim yourself on this one wheedwhacker.

You will understand what I mean and where I'm coming from when you view the archive.org Fox footage of the aftermath of the Pentagon incident.

Bad as their coverage is of most everything else, they have great footage of the scene at the alleged impact zone. It is crystal clear that although some light and dark smoke is rising from the damage to the Pentagon, the vast majority of the smoke rising, the thick black smoke that went on for so long after the initial event, is coming from a very small fire within the metal work of the diesel generator. A fire that could have been put out with foam in 30 seconds.

But that would defeat it's purpose, which was to disguise the fact that there was no serious fuel fire at the Pentagon.

The firemen weren't in on it. They just knew that there was no need to deal with that very small, contained fire, when the priority was to the building and its workers.

People should look at that footage. It puts the Pentagon situation in a whole new perspective when you realize where that smoke was coming from.

To see what I mean, go to the following:

www.archive.org...

The footage is at 4:15 and following of this segment. As the smoke begins to die down from the building, the generator fire in front of the building carries on, pumping out that black dirty smoke.


[edit on 20-8-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
What is the probablity (sic)of 13 people drawing a similar flight path of an
event that never happened?


The similarity is that they ALL end with the plane hitting the Pentagon. ALL of the witnesses that were in a position to, SAW THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON.

It's interesting how PFT and CIT with all their neat little videos will not show a computer graphic of how the plane would look flying AROUND and to the RIGHT of the explosion if we were to believe this South Parking lot horse manure.

Here are a few views of the Pentagon from different locations near the South Parking lot. CIT & PFFFT are delusional to think a stunt like the one they are pimping was not seen.









[edit on 20-8-2009 by CameronFox]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join