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

And I think it is worth noting for the edification of anyone reading this thread who has half a brain that Spreston is the guy who says that oxidation of steel is elemental transmutation. He supports the infamous Judy Woods and her "Ray Guns did it" theory.

Now if mr/mrs/ms preston would like to refute the above facts a very large rain of sh*t will be forthcoming. I don't want to have to embarrass preston by bringing a physicist in here. Actually it would ruin all the fun.

[edit on 20-8-2009 by mrwiffler]

reply to post by mrwiffler

CIT has people who saw the plane approach north of Citgo. Sean Boger was ducking for cover in the tower at the Pentagon. And you have a guy who saw the plane flying over the parking lot on another side of the building, going away.

Do you think it was an underfly of the building?

Originally posted by mrwiffler
And I think it is worth noting for the edification of anyone reading this thread who has half a brain that Spreston is the guy who . . .

Come one Mr. W. Ad hominum attacks are just an appeal to people who are basically interested in gossip and can't be bothered to follow an argument.

According to the new T&C we are supposed to elevate the tone of the discussion and skip the mudslinging. Please do.

I believe it is our duty to show the people the truth about the supporters of the CIT group in that they proliferate absurd theories. Call it mudslinging if you want, Spreston has made more personal attacks than anyone in this thread. He deserves to be taken to task for the idiocy he espouses.

I will state the facts as many times as I can stomach:

Many, Many credible witnesses saw the plane hit the building. None saw a flyover. Simple.

There are no other relevant details. CIT has done more damage to the genuine truth movement than any organisation that I know of. Their dishonesty knows no bounds.

ipsedixit, please answer me this; Do you support Judy Woods and her theories?

(to the mods)This is a relevant question albeit a one liner.

maybe a relevant Q if posted on that "thread" you created......you know....your Judy Woods postings....

How is it relevant here???

PS...

If you are a believer of the Official Word then i would be careful scoffing at other peoples beliefs on this subject...and that includes judy Wood...

Afterall, he who scoffs last scoffs longest...!!

Originally posted by mrwiffler
I believe it is our duty to show the people the truth about the supporters of the CIT group in that they proliferate absurd theories. Call it mudslinging if you want, Spreston has made more personal attacks than anyone in this thread. He deserves to be taken to task for the idiocy he espouses.

Personally, I think that should be done in the appropriate threads. Otherwise it's derailing. Derailing and ad hominum attacks are the last refuge of the shill.

Many, Many credible witnesses saw the plane hit the building. None saw a flyover. Simple.

Not simple. Such testamonies are often oversold by the debunkers. Mike Walter, for example presents himself as credible and says that the wings of the airliner folded like an accordion and were dragged into the building by the fuselage. That's an absurdity. Do you believe him?

There are no other relevant details. CIT has done more damage to the genuine truth movement than any organisation that I know of. Their dishonesty knows no bounds.

I don't believe that is true. From any objective standard of investigation, the inquiry into 9/11 by the relevant authorities has been worse than a shambles, but not only that, the consequences of the lack of a proper investigation led to hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq, who did absolutely nothing but try to get an invader out of their country, being killed.

Read the history of Hitler's road to WW2. You will see the originator of the Bush administrations's playbook for foreign policy. The majority of Germans went along with that madman and now the majority of Americans are going along with Bush and his successor.

America is on an evil road. Taking care of 9/11 in timely fashion might have saved many. CIT are doing what should have been done by the police in the first instance.

Shame America. Eventually you will see what you have become.

[edit on 20-8-2009 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ipsedixit

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.

In my use of the video frames to illustrate the so-called "flyover", feel free to expound on how the timestamps are relevant.



[edit on 21-8-2009 by jthomas]

Originally posted by turbofan

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.

If they had actually seen the beginnings of a flyover from their approach-side positions, you know full well that there would be scores of eyewitnesses all around the Pentagon seeing the jet "fly over and away from the Pentagon" by your own claim. Please provide their eyewitness statements.

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?

And the probability that hundreds of people on every side of the Pentagon would not see your claimed "flyover" is exactly what?

If they had actually seen the beginnings of a flyover from their approach-side positions, you know full well that there would be scores of eyewitnesses all around the Pentagon seeing the jet "fly over and away from the Pentagon" by your own claim. Please provide their eyewitness statements.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/85c6f658630a.jpg[/atsimg]
See how easy that jet is to see, turbofan?

It's not easy unless you assume the plane continued to ascended!

You mean CIT's claim of a flyover is false as shown in its photo above? You DO claim it "flew over and away from the Pentagon", just like CIT illustrated above and I do of that claim in my avatar.

As stated by Rosie, the aircraft was low over the light poles in the
parking lot, it was NOT ascending high into the sky!

If he had seen a "flyover" as you claim, you can't claim a flyover is not a flyover, can you? Repeat after me: a flyover is a flyover is a flyover.

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?

So you really have to deny that there are hundreds of other vantage points? Do you really want us to believe that the jet wasn't seen "flying over and away from the Pentagon?" That NO ONE saw any jet appear on the other side of the Pentagon?

Here is a photo in case you're too proud to view the video:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/40acd8d41ca2.jpg[/atsimg]

Yup, there's the beginning of your "flyover." And CIT shows it's continuation. There's no doubt about it.

I've answered all of your quesitons.

Nope, you answered none. You just made my case stronger. Please provide the eyewitness statements amongst the hundreds of people all around the Pentagon.

What's taking you so long, turbofan?

Originally posted by Nutter

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?

You'd better catch up with the discussion before writing. We're talking about the so-called "flyover" jet, not the C-130, a prop plane, flying later and higher.

Originally posted by GenRadek
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.

Precisely.

I illustrated the point a year ago in a GIS view shed analysis here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It flew right over their heads.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
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]

Why can't you acknowledge the fact that you cannot know what hundreds of people all around the Pentagon saw or did not see?

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by mrwiffler
And I think it is worth noting for the edification of anyone reading this thread who has half a brain that Spreston is the guy who . . .

Come one Mr. W. Ad hominum attacks are just an appeal to people who are basically interested in gossip and can't be bothered to follow an argument.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Please stop insulting our intelligence.

Originally posted by benoni
weedwhacker..


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

You "allege" you've been driving a car, I have no proof. John Lear "alleges" to be a pilot, but perhaps the person who used to post here under that name was an imposter. Maybe YOU are an imposter?

Now, that was just example...of COURSE I know who Lear is, but he's not the topic here, I shamelssly used him as an example because of another active ATS thread. BTW, there plenty here, even on the "denier" side, who know I'm the real deal. (except you, it seems...)

Your analogy and attempted deflection is ludicrous. I never mentioned anything about investigating the crash, nor purported to be an "expert" in airplane crash investigations. My contributions are focused on clearing up misperceptions by non-pilots (laypersons) involving perspectives and procedures, and what is and what is not likely.

Anyway.... could you please summerise how you........would have been able to fly one.... into the Pentagon, and only create a hole 16 feet in diameter.....and then have the plane disappear....

Aim ans steer the airplane into the target. Not difficult. YOU could even do it. The total extent of the damage was greater than 16 feet. Really, that information is out there, it is only from certain disreputable sources that the lies and distortions keep driving this nonsense. Disappear?? You should pay better attention, and focus on the FACT of airpane debris, passengers' and crews' personal effects, and (forgive me) Human remains sufficient to provide identification, whether through dental records, DNA or other methods.

This is the kind of data not included in so many of these bogus websites that wish to promote their insane "theories".

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

I already addressed that, above. **sigh**....the photos and images have been linked to, and presented here, on ATS so many times, may I please askk you to do the research yourself?? I hate to waste server space, it's been done DOZENS of times.

You will note my attempt at sarcasm...

Attempt?? No, success!

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

I am NOT playing any bloody games!!!

The [expletives] who are promoting this "flyover" nonsense, and "missile" Bravo Sierra are playing a sick, sick game. Investigate and uncover THEIR real motivations, and YOU could be a hero!

Originally posted by SPreston
Great views of landings at Reagan CameronFox. Right down the Potomac Approach.

So, flight 77, that was witnessed traveling at a high rate of speed, no landing gear down was able to land on a runway less then a mile away???

WOW did it have like government super duper secret retro rockets and parachutes on it?

Originally posted by ipsedixit
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e078ba25f314.jpg[/atsimg]

That image is wrong, in so many ways...it is NOT an officially produced FAA representation of actual procedures at DCA!

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

Runway 15/33 is only used by the small turbo-prop commuters, because of its length. A take-off from Runway 33 is rare, but it would require an immediate right turn (*immediate* in the airline world usually means above 400' AGL, as a safety consideration) to avoid over-flying the Pentagon. ALSO it is a VFR-only take-off Runway. The smaller airplanes will sometimes be offered landings, also, in visual conditions, on 15/33(depending) in order to accomodate other airplanes on 1/19, to speed up operations when it gets busy.

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.

Yes! That is why the "flyover" scenario falls apart. The view of the airplanes changes, depending on perspective. I will link some things to give you an idea of the normal altitudes of airplanes operating in and out of DCA, to the Northwest.

....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....

I am picking the article from Travel & Leisure apart to clear up, and tamp down, their hyperbole. I will also link the Runway 19 River Visual procedure, as mentioned above. The "steep turn" they refer to is about a 10-15 degree angle of bank, MAX! It APPEARS unusual, because of the low altitude.

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.

MORE breathless hyperbole!!! Again, for departures off of Runway 1, it merely involves a left turn, a heading change of just about 30 degrees, to intercept a course from the DCA VOR/DME, on a radial of 331 degrees to the Northwest.

The STANDARD bank angle for all turns in passenger jets is 25 degrees. (Southwest Airlines have a policy, at THEIR company, of 30 degrees --- at least, they did some years ago. It was, my opinion, a silly thought that they'd save time, from increasing the rate of turn. I think the benefits are negligible, and passenger comfort and safety should come first).

Here is the Rwy 19 River Visual

Note the suggested altitude of Key Bridge, and the very minor final turn required, to finish lining up with the runway...know that in a typical airliner approach you will descend about 300 feet for every mile.

Here is the Rwy 01 Mount Vernon Visual procedure when landing to the North. Basically, straight in, yes? No drama.

BTW....airport operations the morning of 11 September were to the North....

Here is an Instrument Approach Procedure for Rwy 19: Rwy 19 LDA/DME

Notice the weather minima required: 2 miles visibility, for Category 'C' airplanes (that is a classification based on maximum approach speeds, which are determined by landing weights. Your single-aisle jets passenger jets are all 'C').


That is offered only as an example....on a cloudy day, low ceilings (under 1000 feet) they will either be using Rwy 01, or if the winds dictate, they will land South, but either way the clouds will obscure the airplanes from viewers on the ground.


Summary: A clear day, 11 September. Airplanes taking off from DCA will turn to a Northwesterly heading shortly after lift-off, basically follow up river until vectored on course. Human eyewitnesses, and their memories, can be notoriously influenced by traumatic events, and their perceptions can be suspect. Mistaking a normal departure from DCA, either immediately prior to, or after the Pentagon impact, is perfectly reasonable to assume.

From the DCA ATC Tower recordings, I don't believe there were any departures after AA77 was noticed by controllers. Remember, the emergency "Ground Stop" had already been issued, effective at 0930 local EDT, in reaction to the NYC events.

AA77 impact was at 0937. People's memories could certainly be confused, perhaps having seen a departing airplane a few minutes before 0930, and confusing that with a faulty memory later.






[edit on 21 August 2009 by weedwhacker]

posted by mrwiffler

And I think it is worth noting for the edification of anyone reading this thread who has half a brain that Spreston is the guy who says that oxidation of steel is elemental transmutation. He supports the infamous Judy Woods and her "Ray Guns did it" theory.

Now if mr/mrs/ms preston would like to refute the above facts a very large rain of sh*t will be forthcoming. I don't want to have to embarrass preston by bringing a physicist in here. Actually it would ruin all the fun.

Oh really mrwiffler? Can you quote any post of mine on any forum anywhere on earth in which I support Dr Judy Wood's Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW) (your ray-guns) research?

Just because I use all the photos of 1400 actual proven vehicles damaged by something around the WTC on 9-11, which Dr Judy Woods had the good foresight to preserve for future generations, does not mean I support her DEW research. Are you just angry that I published many of those damaged vehicle photos here on ATS?

As far as I know, Dr Judy Woods has done zero research on nano-thermite technology. So perhaps you should keep your lies to yourself, and cease your false accusations against an ATS member.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f54f6bb4567e.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/292d1ddd1bd1.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2ccf3ab7430d.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by SPreston


I'm puzzled

Does the CIT now claim other "flyovers" in NYC?

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

posted by CameronFox

So, flight 77, that was witnessed traveling at a high rate of speed, no landing gear down was able to land on a runway less then a mile away???

WOW did it have like government super duper secret retro rockets and parachutes on it?

Don't know CameronFox. Its your little pseudo-drama. Your photoshopped pics with gear down. Your Hollywood Special Effects explosion with the Washington Monument in the background.

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

As far as I know, Flight 77 stayed up in Ohio and never returned to Virginia. Regardless the actual aircraft present flew Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo.

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

Originally posted by SPreston
Oh really mrwiffler? Can you quote any post of mine on any forum anywhere on earth in which I support Dr Judy Wood's Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW) (your ray-guns) research?

Even though SPreston and I don't see eye to eye on anything at all relating to 9/11, I have to say in this case accusing him of supporting Batty Wood's DEW fantasy is totally unfounded and incorrect.

I would retract that statement mrwiffler, unless you have some proof to the contrary, which I highly doubt.