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: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I tell you what, reading this thread it's really easy tosee who's approaching this honestly and who isn't.




posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston


Come on, admit it, you desperately WANT to find any way to discredit CF, and I know you're smart enough to know that THAT particular notion, a 'flyover' and immediate landing at DCA, is ridiculous. Are you just hoping to sow the idea in other people's heads, that CF would also think such a ridiculous thing were possible?? This idea is old, it's already been floated in a thread by LaBToP a while ago, and shot down completely.




Don't know CameronFox. Its your little pseudo-drama. Your photoshopped pics with gear down.


Again, with the attempted character assassination, when you know perfectly well it is just an EXAMPLE of what SHOULD have been seen, by hundreds of people, IF there were any "flyover"! SO WHAT if the image has the gear down?? It isn't meant to be an exact representation...it's not even the same airline, notice that?? It's Delta....but, IT DOESN'T MATTER as an illustration!!

AND you know this!

But, this part is truly outrageous ---

As far as I know, Flight 77 stayed up in Ohio and never returned to Virginia.



So, this bear repeating, sorry if it's too technical for some, I'll be happy to field questions and provide explanations: Autopilot and Navigation Equipment Activity study

This covers just the data taken from the SSFDRs of AA77 and UA93, as regards the Autopilots and such.

Noting that the #1 (Captain's side) NAV radio on AA77 was tuned to (and receiving) the DCA VOR is significant. NO WAY could the VOR signal be received all the way from Ohio!!!



Regardless the actual aircraft present flew Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo.


OTHER SSFDR data refutes that. ONLY a handful of dodgy "eyewitnesses" to support such claims, and the others who refute them are conveniently (??) ignored by CIT.


Nothing crashed into the Pentagon CF, as you well know.



OH??? Well, NOW you're gonna get all the "missile" from an "A-3" people all mad and stuff....you really want that?




[edit on 21 August 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
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!



First thing I have ever seen you post correctly!
Please go on.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
I tell you what, reading this thread it's really easy tosee who's approaching this honestly and who isn't.


It's pretty darn obvious to me.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You bring up character assassination when you do it repeatedly
Another one of your ploys. Prove cf has character to assassinate.
On the subject of A3's and missiles.
You know the one ousted Republican Saudi ring kisser who's name makes you tremble.
The one that said, the missile hit the Pentagon. Argue that with him.
The A3 bomber story as you well know is well documented and needs more press.
Prove it wrong.
You will not see me upset with anyone about any theory or evidence they post if it
helps get A honest REINVESTIGATION
PS the A3 was capable of deploying a missile also. You should know.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You bring up character assassination when you do it repeatedly
Another one of your ploys. Prove cf has character to assassinate.
On the subject of A3's and missiles.
You know the one ousted Republican Saudi ring kisser who's name makes you tremble.
The one that said, the missile hit the Pentagon. Argue that with him.
The A3 bomber story as you well know is well documented and needs more press.
Prove it wrong.
You will not see me upset with anyone about any theory or evidence they post if it
helps get A honest REINVESTIGATION
PS the A3 was capable of deploying a missile also. You should know.


You have to come with hard evidence for the need for yet another investigation. Just because 9/11 Truthers cannot get their facts correct, make claims they cannot support, don't like the answers to questions they repeatedly ask, nor refute the massive evidence they pretend doesn't exist, is no reason for another investigation.

It just won't happen. There is nothing magical about that fact.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


I'll take jthomas for DISHONEST! The poor guy can't follow a simple
debate and continues to dodge quesitons.

Nevermind that Rosvelts said the aircraft was just over the light poles
in the south parking lot after the explosion...jthomas wants the plane
to be hundreds of feet in the air!


Just like you said Rich, anyone reading this will be able to pick off the
trolls and disinfo tactics. Hopefully those still sitting on the fence will
come to light. We are certainly not going to change the mind of a troll
that's for sure...nor should we waste our time debating them.

I gave jthomas about five chances to explain the witness statements of
"pull up over the sign" , and "over the south parking lot immediately
after the explosion". He failed. When he can answer my questions,
we will continue the discussion.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Now that right there is a problem with the "truthers". Always have to make a simple job so ridiculously complicated, so convoluted, so Rube-Goldberg-esque in their method, its boggles the mind how stupid the thinking behind it is.

Rather than taking any old 757, or 737, 767, even a 747 from an Arizona bone yard, outfitting it with remote controls, dead bodies, bombs, magic pixy dust, whatever, and crashing it to look like the real thing..... NO! lets take an old 1950s era carrier borne aircraft, that hasnt flown in almost 20 years. Paint it in AA colors, refurbish it to airworthiness, load millions of dollars of new electronic equipment, prepare an uber-elaborate set up with hundreds and hundreds of "fake" eyewitnesses, staged poles, explosives, etc etc etc and then A) do a magic fly-by with it with special preplanted explosives and jet fuel going off in the Pentagon; B) Crash it and pretend it WAS a 757, or C) use other magic decoys and... ahh the hell with it, we'll figure it out later. But wait! There is more! Apparently they cant decide which one they did! Was there a fly-over? Or did it crash? Or some magic decoys and mirrors! Lets jump from one explanation to the other and hope no one notices!

This train of thought from the so called "truthers" just goes to show how disorganized and just how.... (how shall I put this delicately?) inept they are with even thinking up such "theories" (although technically these are just ideas based solely on gut feelings and assumptions and not theories). I do not understand the type of mind or what logic that thinks making a simple staged event has to be so backward and asinine in planning and execution that its a miracle it even went off with out a hitch. Using an A-3 Skywarrior to fake a 757 crash? What IDIOT would think this way? And then to think they would fool thousands and thousands? No, that is just idiocracy. The so called "truthers" that peddle this garbage and those that came up with it really should get their heads checked. Because normal people dont think this way. And then to think they can pass it off as facts or viable alternatives with a straight face?


You mean to tell me that rather than going the easy RATIONAL way and using an existing 757 airframe and crashing it into the Pentagon thereby making it look 100% real (because it is a 757 crashing into the Pentagon!) they will take the hardest, most complicated, irrational, convoluted, a$$backward plan that looks as if a brain damaged person thought of it during a night of binge drinking?



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by rich23
 


I'll take jthomas for DISHONEST! The poor guy can't follow a simple
debate and continues to dodge quesitons.

Nevermind that Rosvelts said the aircraft was just over the light poles
in the south parking lot after the explosion...jthomas wants the plane
to be hundreds of feet in the air!


Just like you said Rich, anyone reading this will be able to pick off the
trolls and disinfo tactics. Hopefully those still sitting on the fence will
come to light. We are certainly not going to change the mind of a troll
that's for sure...nor should we waste our time debating them.

I gave jthomas about five chances to explain the witness statements of
"pull up over the sign" , and "over the south parking lot immediately
after the explosion". He failed. When he can answer my questions,
we will continue the discussion.



I have to so totally agree with you turbo. Look for a u2u in your box.
Do you know if a A3 bomber could fire a missile at that close range. The missle going slightly downward so his course could clear the building?



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I beam boy here looks like his turbines hit a flock of geese.
Pull up on the stick son. Be careful you don't let any loose armament smack you or your chute on the way down. By the way I LOVED your rant.
Got more? Keep it coming dude! Have you flown all those aircraft?
If not wacker can help you.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 




ah so you DO believe in half-baked ideas that are so impractical that if shown to a 1st grader he/she would choose the easier route rather than the impossible route. Hmm using a real 757 in a crash or lets go the impossible route and go with the A-3 Skywarrior and pray no one notices. Hey whatever floats your boat.
You want to believe in insane Rube Goldberg style plans that are so ridicules, so convoluted, so illogical, so irrational, hey more power to you. But be prepared to defend that sort of illogical thinking, coherently.

Although my "rant" was more about the brain-damaged thinking behind some of these half-baked ideas that are so well, impractical and downright impossible, obviously you failed to notice.

For a laugh, please do try and explain how exactly they came up with the "idea" of an A-3 Skywarrior being used as a fake for a 757? And then go on to tell me how intelligent that line of thinking is in comparison to using a real 757. Oh by the way: Now you are going against SPrestons magical flyover idea. Better tread delicately here since to him, no planes hit anything and the decoy/real/ufo/etc magically used a cloaking device to disappear right over the Pentagon at the time of the fireball.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


In the year 1491 the stupid, ignorant nut job ,asinine, backward ,soft brained, anti everything peoples such as your rhetoric reminds me of, said the world was flat.
It took many courageous folks to turn the logic you possess around.
Get your head out of your sand. Stop fearing a REINVESTIGATION of honest citizens.
How can it hurt you or any one my little 1491er? The fly over aspect of the movement that makes your knees knock is only one part of a loosely ,semi ,quasi, multi and competent group of un confederated Americans. Unlike yours.



[edit on 21-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


ah yes, now come the personal attacks. So rather than answer any of my questions, or come up with something coherent, you go onto some thinly veiled personal attack, with no real substance, or intelligence really. Way to go. I wonder if this is how the "truth" movement behaves when confronted with reality. Personal attacks, incredulity, and insult. I think so, and you are just proving it.

So I guess you A) have no explanation for why ANYONE would even consider making a simple operation turn into an uber-Rube Goldberg machine style plan, so complicated, so backwards it hurts the brain;
B) still have no proof of a fly-over nor any explanation for how it could have happened without thousands of potential witnesses that should have been able to see it easily;
C) Still have no explanation for the reasoning or irrational thinking behind these backwards ideas and "theories" (which I use the term loosely.)

[edit on 8/21/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 




ah so you DO believe in half-baked ideas that are so impractical that if shown to a 1st grader he/she would choose the easier route rather than the impossible route. Hmm using a real 757 in a crash or lets go the impossible route and go with the A-3 Skywarrior and pray no one notices. Hey whatever floats your boat.
You want to believe in insane Rube Goldberg style plans that are so ridicules, so convoluted, so illogical, so irrational, hey more power to you. But be prepared to defend that sort of illogical thinking, coherently.

Although my "rant" was more about the brain-damaged thinking behind some of these half-baked ideas that are so well, impractical and downright impossible, obviously you failed to notice.

For a laugh, please do try and explain how exactly they came up with the "idea" of an A-3 Skywarrior being used as a fake for a 757? And then go on to tell me how intelligent that line of thinking is in comparison to using a real 757. Oh by the way: Now you are going against SPrestons magical flyover idea. Better tread delicately here since to him, no planes hit anything and the decoy/real/ufo/etc magically used a cloaking device to disappear right over the Pentagon at the time of the fireball.


First off, Ibeam, baker dude, it is not they it is me on my lonesome. Can your mind only function with a we mentality.

You can search the rest by the authors name.


Missile & remote control systems added to small jets before 9-11; same parts found at Pentagon

Two civilian defense contractor employees--told to remain silent--say other workers quietly retro-fitted missile and remote control systems onto A-3 jets at Colorado public airport prior to September 11 when similar A-3 parts much smaller than a Boeing 757 were found at Pentagon

Presidential candidate says scores of retired and active military and intelligence officials would testify before current grand jury probing government involvement in 9/11 attacks

by Tom Flocco

Fort Collins, Colorado -- May 26, 2005 -- TomFlocco.com --
According to two civilian defense contractor employees working at commercial corporate facilities at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport (left), in the months before the September 11 attacks U.S. Air Force defense contractors brought in A-3 Sky Warrior aircraft under cover of darkness to be completely refitted and modified at the small civilian airport in Colorado.

The revelations are important evidence for a reportedly ongoing secret 9/11 probe because widely available Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) photographs taken during the attacks clearly show that the few aircraft parts found at the Pentagon belonged to a small jet very similar to a modified A-3 Sky Warrior--not the American Airlines Boeing 757.

It is not known whether all members of Congress are aware of the under-the-radar-screen grand jury proceedings, who has already testified, and whether the probe is purposefully being kept from public knowledge, according to government intelligence sources.
The two witnesses say that separate military contractor teams--working independently at different times--refitted Douglas A-3 Sky Warriors (above) with updated missiles, Raytheon's Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) remote control systems, fire control systems, engines, transponders, and radio-radar-navigation systems--a total makeover, seemingly for an operation more important than use as a simple missile testing platform for defense contractor Hughes-Raytheon.



The employees asked not to be identified for personal safety reasons and fear of job retaliation; but both told 2008 independent presidential candidate Karl Schwarz (left) "the Air Force brought in separate teams to do top-secret military work unrelated to commercial aviation at our airport, and we were told by our bosses not to discuss what we had seen with anyone."

The witnesses were quite fearful about several recent "suicides, car wrecks--mysterious deaths--directly related to the aviation experts" working on the systems that were installed on the A-3’s at Fort Collins-Loveland--having breached the government-blocked information flow at great personal risk, according to Schwarz--but providing more evidence for a New York 9/11 investigation.

Schwarz, a former Republican from Arkansas now living in Georgia and running as an independent to clean up government corruption and crime told TomFlocco.com that he met with the employees for about an hour in February to discuss the issue.

The witnesses told Schwarz that each jet was placed in a hanger just big enough for a work crew and one A-3 Sky Warrior; and "we were under strict orders not to discuss what the military teams were doing or what we saw."

The presidential candidate told us "there are about 150 retired and active U.S. military and federal intelligence officers who will come forward and testify regarding government involvement in the September 11 attacks--but only if there is a serious criminal grand jury."

Small plane evidence moved at Pentagon

The approximate 16-foot entry hole at the outside facade of the Pentagon on 9/11 has been the subject of countless questions by those who say the hole was caused by an air-to-ground missile (AGM) fired from a small military jet rather than an impact from a Boeing 757.

Interestingly, the Hughes division manufactures the AGMs; and the Raytheon division maintains the last few A-3 Sky Warriors in operation save 2-4 Air Force jets--while also manufacturing the Global Hawk UAV remote control systems.

Some reasons cited to support a missile hole include evidence that a) the wings and rear stabilizer caused virtually no damage to the outside walls and windows at point of impact, b) no 757 interior or exterior parts were found at the scene, c) the soft nose of a 757 would have had difficulty piercing through three Pentagon wall rings, and d) three aircraft parts found were similar to the somewhat outdated but still serviceable Douglas A-3 Sky Warrior military attack jet rather than the much larger Boeing 757.

Air-traffic controllers from the Washington, DC sector originally said the incoming plane was a military jet according to reports; but no grand jury has called them to testify

whada ya say now ?



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Tom Flocco?
The disinfo artist?
Yes he is pretty good at that isnt he?
Not good enough apparently:
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

He's already been busted as a disinfo agent by many in the "truth" movement too.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

oh by the way, where is the evidence they ever discovered "remote control" parts and missile parts in the Pentagon? And why is it that when people went inside the Pentagon, they found 757 parts inside? Not A-3 Skywarrior parts. There are differences between Douglas aircraft from the 50s and Boeing 757 aircraft from the 80s-90s. and yet the parts, engines, landing gear, etc found was all 757. Not Skywarrior. And why didnt anyone mention seeing an aircraft with wings mounted on top rather than like on a 757?

and again, this all goes back to the very important question YOU dodge: What kind of brain came up with this uber-complicated, idiotic plan of using 1950s era aircraft carrier based bombers, refurbished wth millions of dollars of new technology, missiles, remote controls, and not to mention making them flyable, and then use them in broad daylight with hardly a decent resemblance to an AA 757, directly over densely populated areas with numerous people who could easily see it, and crash it rght in front of hundreds if not, thousands of people, and then run around claiming it was a 757?

And what idiot thinks using missiles before crashing is going to work or do anything?
Sure cause that is SO much easier than using a REAL 757.


Tom Flocco, disinfo agent.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


www.abovetopsecret.com...

here is an entire thread that shows all the evidence FOR a 757 impacting the Pentagon. Done with actual facts, evidence, and done with real research. Not imagination, and well, lets stick with imagination.

although I know that this is like throwing pearls before swine, but eh what the heck. At least I tried.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Also more on the 757:
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...

an excellent list compiled.

Here is a good one:
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...

more on the A-3 nonsense.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 

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?


I believe it's the same aircraft that another one of CIT's star witnesses described in a similar manner.


... we heard this boom, you know, this big explosion. And we, all we could see was the smoke and the heat. We could feel the heat. And it was so intense that after that happened, we looked up in the sky and there was another plane...

...It was low enough that it could touch the building, the warehouse. It was close...

...Yeah, I'd probably say about telephone pole height...


Link



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Tom Flocco?
The disinfo artist?
Yes he is pretty good at that isnt he?
Not good enough apparently:
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...



OK Here is your thread. Where does it say one thing about an A3?
In a court of law this would not bode well for you. Another shot in the foot will not stop you from pulling the trigger repeatedly I fear.
Put your gun on the ground and your hands on the roof of the car.
You are headed to disinformation prison ole son.

your thread starts here

Tom Flocco Now Thoroughly Discredited
Introduction – September 23, 2005


With many thanks to the reader who pointed out the following discrepancies which more or less confirm Tom Flocco's status as a prime disinformation agent. We've had our suspicions for some time but the following proves them quite conclusively. First off, Poland and Austria do not share a common border, yours truly should have picked that up immediately but geography was never a strong point at school. Likewise the Italian lyra is no longer tenable currency, it ceased to be legal tender on February 28, 2002. Which makes claims about fake lyra currency all the more improbable along with everything else claimed by the recent guest on Jeff Rense's internet radio show.

Moreover, a reader has just informed us that location of events reported on Flocco's website has now changed. From being the Austrian Polish border, as originally reported, it's now moved to the Polish German border, which actually exists. Seems like Flocco got wind of his mistake and is now trying to recover his tattered credibility. Ed.

9-11 crash victim Barbara Olson arrested in Europe
Tom Flocco.com – September 22, 2005

French and American intelligence agents have arrested Barbara Olson, the wife of a former Bush administration official, a few days ago on the Polish-Austrian border, according to agents close to and with knowledge of the incident.

The alleged 9.11 Pentagon crash victim was found to be in possession of millions in fake interbank Italian lyra currency, according to the agents.

Olson was also reportedly in possession of a fraudulent Vatican passport and was held on charges of counterfeiting.

The former Fox News TV commentator and Independent Women's Forum activist was said to have called her husband Theodore Olson from her plane to seek help in countering hijackers who had allegedly taken over American flight 77 which the Bush administration said was crashed into the Pentagon – although the impact only left an opening approximately 16 feet across.

Ted Olson is the former Bush 43 Solicitor General who had previously argued the President's legal interests in the controversial Bush-Gore 2000 election recount case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mrs. Olson's alleged cell phone call to her husband was employed by the administration and the 9.11 Commission as partial proof that American 77 crashed into the Pentagon, despite physical evidence to the contrary.

The Pentagon crash evidence was ignored and obstructed by both the Commission and previously by the Joint Congressional Intelligence Committee in its own separate probe.

Due to the ongoing sensitive nature of the arrest, investigation and questioning, one source who declined to be named for this story, told TomFlocco.com that Olson's call to her husband was a fraud and that another projectile impacted the Pentagon other than Olson's plane.

The agents were said to have closed in to arrest the former television pundit because the evidence of counterfeiting and passport violations was obvious and that the timing was right.

According to the agents, Barbara Olson is reportedly considered to be a conspirator to the obstruction of justice in the mass murders of 3,000 individuals on September 11, 2001 in the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the alleged crash in southwestern Pennsylvania.

Olson's arrest and potential appearance at trial in the United States would undoubtedly have a profound impact upon current "Able Danger" hearings in the Senate and past probes by both the Joint Congressional Intelligence Committee and the 9.11 Commission.
www.tomflocco.com/fs/OlsenArrested.htm

Printer friendly version Email this article to a friend

Last updated 07/05/2006

Homepage
End of your link

A special thanks for the Olsen story.
You should at least read your own links duh



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Weedy..

Your squirming i sense!!

i'll ask you again...only this time more clearly....just incase you misunderstood my analogy...

Since when does being an alleged pilot of some sort make you a Crash Scene Investigator who knows better than i do??

Does flying a plane give you greater insight??



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join