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

Hey Cameron, why don't you get down to Arlington and video tape various
vantage points LIKE CIT DID instead of using computer graphics?

At any rate, would you care to answer the three questions I asked above?

You quoted it one of the questions, but you didn't answer it.

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.

Now, this is what I call misinformation.

Am I to assume that you don't think the C-130 that was tailing flight 77 didn't fly near and then away from the pentagon?

Are you serious?

Let's see.

1. Jet.....check.
2. Flew over and away from the pentagon......check.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli


What is the probability 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%

Your math is WAY off! Nevermind the 200 witnesses unless you have
independent verification of their accounts.

I'll ask again:

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

Hint: the answer is MUCH less than 1%

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

The C-130

Do your research and listen to the interview! He described jet engines
and a commercial airliner. THe C-130 did not arrive until minutes later.

Rosevelt was on the dock within seconds after the explosion; he was
stationed only tens of feet away from the South dock when the explosion
happened!

Originally posted by turbofan
Hey Cameron, why don't you get down to Arlington and video tape various
vantage points LIKE CIT DID instead of using computer graphics?

Why would I spend my hard earned money to FURTHER prove a fantasy of very few, wrong?

I had asked many times for CIT and PFFFFT to show some graphics as to how the plane would look if it were to take the route into the and over the South parking lot.

I think you know why this won't be created anytime soon.

Originally posted by CameronFox

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cf6a27760d3c.jpg[/atsimg]

www.travelandleisure.com...

In some of Cameron's views posted above a casual viewer or someone distracted by smoke and fire in the foreground might well think that an airliner above the Pentagon roofline was in fact on approach to Reagan National or taking off from it.


[edit on 20-8-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit


no sir.

The claim of the CIT & PFFFT clans are that the plane would have had to have banked around the explosion. Looking at the Pentagon toward the impact point, the plane would have had to have banked toward the right of the explosion.

The pictures I posted do not represent the south parking lot path. I was only showing views of the Pentagon from the highways surround the area.

reply to post by CameronFox

Wouldn't that be in the direction of the Potomac, i.e, toward the river, where people were accustomed to see low flying aircraft?


[edit on 20-8-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit


no, sir.

I will try to find the flight path they put together.

here is the flight path as mentioned above.



The plane would have to be banking at this time and would be VERY low and would not be confused with an approach to Reagan. (it would be flying away from the airport.)

posted by CameronFox
Potomac Approach

posted by ipsedixit

In some of Cameron's views posted above a casual viewer or someone distracted by smoke and fire in the foreground might well think that an airliner above the Pentagon roofline was in fact on approach to Reagan National or taking off from it.

Great views of landings at Reagan CameronFox. Right down the Potomac Approach.

Is that the Washington Monument in the background?

reply to post by CameronFox

Yeah, I think I'm right. See the Washington monument in the backround. That's across the Potomac. The airport would be to the right in the photo if it were big enough.

In the earlier photo I posted you can see the Pentagon above and to the left of the airport.

z3.invisionfree.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e41b540fe9e4.jpg[/atsimg]



[edit on 20-8-2009 by ipsedixit]

[edit on 20-8-2009 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by CameronFox
here is the flight path as mentioned above.

The plane would have to be banking at this time and would be VERY low and would not be confused with an approach to Reagan. (it would be flying away from the airport.)

No. The Potomac is in the direction of the red arrow in your diagram and Reagan Airport is just a short distance, especially by air, from the Pentagon.

A banking aircraft on the flight path in your diagram would be heading straight for the Reagan National runway.

No. Apologies. That would be overstating it, but such an aircraft would be heading for the Potomac. If it left the area, most people might well think that it had taken off from Reagan.

At the very least, to see a low flying aircraft in the area, as Sean Boger and his partner in the tower at the Pentagon used to mention, was not unusual and sometimes a little scary.


[edit on 20-8-2009 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by SPreston

Great views of landings at Reagan CameronFox. Right down the Potomac Approach.

Is that the Washington Monument in the background?

You are truly hilarious, SPreston!!

"Potomac Approach"!! You really have NO IDEA, do you? Just talking, talking, making it up as you go along, or parroting someone else's nonsense. It's funny!

Quick!! Which way were they taking off and landing, that morning, at DCA?? Don't take time to look it up, you should KNOW!

Do you REALLY think airplanes conducting operations at DCA routinely fly over the Pentagon??? AND, the Washington Monument in jthomas' picture? You can see how small it looks, from that point where the picture was taken. DO YOU KNOW the departure and arrival procedures at DCA? VFR? IFR?

Your 'friend' jumped on your comment, and referred to it from the Pentagon damage photo, but WHAT direction was that picture's POV, compared to the POV of the airport photo??? Hmmm??? Apparent distance is deceiving, in photos. Camera lenses, focal lengths, and stuff.....

Until you have flown airliners into and out of DCA for a dozen years, as I have, you are in NO position to have a valid opinion, nor do you seem to have a very good reference for the area, and perspectives. You're "armchair navigating" isn't helping you much.

[edit on 20 August 2009 by weedwhacker]

posted by turbofan

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

posted by Joey Canoli

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

What 200 eyewitnesses would that be? Would you mind listing their names and showing us their faces? Thanks in advance.

Better yet, why don't you track them down and verify their existence for us. Thank you.

13 / zilch = zilch

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e078ba25f314.jpg[/atsimg]

The runway designated 33 at one end and 15 at the other, in the diagram, points directly at the Pentagon, left and up.

It appears though that the flightpath to Reagan goes past the Pentagon so that people on the highway on the impact side of the Pentagon might well see planes above the roofline of the building on approach to or taking off from Reagan.

www.travelandleisure.com...

Flying around Washington, D.C., is fraught with peril—just ask the pilot of a small aircraft that drifted into restricted airspace in March 2008, causing Congress to be evacuated and military planes to be scrambled. Located smack in the center of two overlapping air-exclusion zones, Reagan National requires pilots flying the so-called River Visual into the airport to follow the Potomac while steering clear of sensitive sites such as the Pentagon and CIA headquarters before making a steep turn and landing on this natural peninsula. Taking off, too, is a white-knuckle event in which pilots are required to climb quickly and execute a steep left bank to avoid flying over the White House.

[edit on 20-8-2009 by ipsedixit]

posted by weedwhacker

You are truly hilarious, SPreston!!

AND, WHERE in the picture from jthomas is the Washington Monument???

Are you ok whacker? Time to take a break in the quiet room?

What does jthomas have to do with anything?

In the first two pics from CameronFox from out on I 395 looking at the Hollywood Special Effects and flash/bang explosions, it looks like the Washington Monument directly behind the aircraft as it approaches runway 19 at Reagan. Sure looks like Cameron's got the gear down. Maybe a touch and go?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fb3038d80a05.jpg[/atsimg]

Thats a mighty fast car old Cameron has there.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2420a04084fb.jpg[/atsimg]



[edit on 8/20/09 by SPreston]

weedwhacker..



I particularly like your creative approach taken in your debunking role....the old "I'm a Pilot".....and therefore I know better than you.

Ive been driving cars and bikes for over 20 years(just as you allege you are a pilot...)

Does that make me an expert on Car Crash Investigations???


Anyway....given your expertise, could you please summerise how you...,given your status in the Aviation World, would have been able to fly one of those very big planes into the Pentagon, and only create a hole 16 feet in diameter,and then have the plane disappear leaving hardly a trace.....??

It boggles my mind and lots of others on here...but clearly not you...??


No seats, no fuselage, no tailsection no wings, no luggage, no engines,no nothing...as my photo posted below shows.



YOU could well be the man to solve this most perplexing mystery....as well as cover yourself in glory....hell...they might even make you a Captain....!!


You will note my attempt at sarcasm...

Sadly, thats one game you win hands down...

Here's another one for you to solve WW....


Heres the supposed exit hole caused by the missile, oops, i meant plane ........

What part of the airliner caused this hole??

Where are the parts of the plane which caused this last bit of damage??

Does it not seem odd to you...given your "expert opinion" status??

If not odd or downright impossible to you, would you please explain how this came about...given the total lack of evidence that a plane had crashed into it??....

You see, your opinion, regardless of your alleged professional standing,will never be accepted as fact....afterall...its just your opinion, and getting angry or resorting to name calling highlights to all here you are desperate ....

No doubt you have a likeable side to your personality.

But your condescension leaves a lot to be desired....and smacks of who you are...

reply to post by ipsedixit

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.

Don't confuse the controllers at Dulles with the controllers at Reagan Tower. You can read Chris Stephenson's (Reagan Tower) account of what happened here and here.

AA 77 would've disappeared behind the high-rise buildings in Crystal City at some point east of the Sheraton Hotel.

Remember, the buildings in Crystal City blocked the impact site from the controllers so they wouldn't have been mesmerized by the "hollywood special effects explosion" and they would not have been blinded by the conjured up "flash-bang explosives."

Ah, maybe shooting fish in a barrel can be fun. Here is one of the funniest comments I've seen for a while:


"Your math is WAY off! Nevermind the 200 witnesses unless you have
independent verification of their accounts. "


Um, dude, independent from what? Independent from their own words you mean? There's 200 of them for gods sake. And zero people saw a flyover.

Anyone in doubt over the issue of a flyover had better go and read these 200 or so accounts. It's in black and white; the plane hit the building. End of story.

Though, Spreston and his sidekicks are providing some pretty neat entertainment here. I'd hate to ruin that with such trivialities as the scientific method. It would be fun to do an analysis of Jprestons word count vs verifiable facts. Something in the order of many thousands of words to zero facts. Keep up the good work.

[edit on 20-8-2009 by mrwiffler]