IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Jeff Hill Debunk

onesliceshort
post Jun 15 2014, 09:32 PM
Post #1





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



I'm posting this as I'm sick to the back teeth of seeing Jeff Hill's "9/11 Pentagon Witnesses" video posted on forums, blogs, whereever.

Jeff "Shure" Hill released a video "9/11 Pentagon Witnesses", where he makes the heading "Conversations with people who saw the plane hit the Pentagon with their own eyes"

For a rundown on the relevance of the trajectory described by all witnesses interviewed (within the area in question who also had a view) and the fact that not one witness contradicts this trajectory, please visit this site

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq.html


Here are the majority of the witnesses "interviewed" in Hill"s video (with contradictions to the alleged impact scenario edited out):

Thomas D. Trapasso

First off, Thomas D. Trapasso is not a witness to an "impact". His apartment is behind the Navy Annex.

QUOTE
"Thomas D. Trapasso, a political appointee in the Clinton Administration who is now looking for work, was making telephone calls from his deck in Arlington Village, about 1 mi. south of the Pentagon and just west of the Interstate 395 (I-395) highway. He was startled by the large American Airlines aircraft flying about 300 ft. overhead. "The engines were just screaming, and the wheels were up," Trapasso said. "It disappeared over the trees, and I heard a boom. I knew something awful had happened--that an airplane had crashed somewhere in Washington, D.C. Then the cell phone went dead. I was scared."Source



Robert Leonard

Omitted from the same interview used in the video..

QUOTE
LEONARD: There used to be like, some kind of a gas station there, it went to that point.

HILL: Yeah yeah yeah that Citgo gas station so it would have flew over that or?

LEONARD:It was over that when it um, banked sharply to the right.

HILL: And did you happen to see it hit those light poles?

LEONARD: Um no I didn't see that ...

(...)

LEONARD: When the plane banked to the right say over to the Citgo station and then headed toward the Pentagon, the um memorial, which I haven't visited, um would have been below the plane's route. "


Which path is he describing?



Albert Hemphill

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/1/...l-5-24-2010.mp3

QUOTE
Ranke: but you saw the fuselage appear, was it directly over the top of the Navy Annex or ...

Hemphill: right over the top

Ranke: when you saw it pass the gas station, which side of the gas station was it on, was it on the Arlington Cemetery or north side or else perhaps the south side, the other side?

Hemphill: you know it's hard to say, it looked like it went right over the top .....

Ranke: would you say, if you had to say it was leaning towards one side or the other of the gas station, perhaps a portion of the plane, did it look directly over the top or what do you think?

Hemphill: yeah, I'd say more towards the cemetery side."


And in the same interview with HIll..

During their conversation, Hill e-mailed this image to "jog" his memory as to where he saw the aircraft. Complete with the official path!



Screencapped here

http://i47.tinypic.com/1e00w2.jpg

Source

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpshitout/singl...4&t=3369020

Omitted from the Hill interview:

QUOTE
Hemphill: Yeah. [unintelligible] That just. It didn’t. There’s just no way! It came, it looked like it went over the gas station!"




Noel Supelveda

QUOTE
"If you go to Google Earth, you'll see exactly where Scorpio Barracks is,(Henderson Hall), where the Sheraton Hotel is, that's the trajectory it took"




Which path is he describing?

Steve Storti

Open letter from Craig Ranke to Steve Storti

Posting at Hill's forum about NOC witness, William Lagasse (who was at the Citgo Station) and the path he drew...



Steve Storti had this to say...

QUOTE
He is correct! At that point it was north of the Navy Annex but it did not come in North of the Navy Annex. The path he drew was consistent with mine except he didnt see the plane fly in. He didnt see it because of the height of the overpass. Route 395 is at least 30 to 40 feet high behind the citgo station. By the time he saw it, it was , from his perspective, on the North side of the annex. However. this is based in his perspective. What they didn't see is how it flew in! Both of the officers mirror my perspective, however they did not see the fly in path. Look at a topographical map of this area. That station is in a hollow, its tucled in to an area below the Navy Annex and 395. Also, please take into account the officers perspective may have been skewed by the fact that they were under the Citgo overhang which covered the pumps..


He was also talking (incorrectly) about Lagasse's fellow officer who drew the exact same path. But he wasn't under the canopy.

The following gif was recorded at his POV and he's pointing to where he saw the aircraft fly by.



The path he drew which corroborated Lagasse and the rest of the NOC witnesses




Dave Winslow

At no point before that interview did Winslow ever claim to witness any "impact".

QUOTE
David Winslow, a reporter with AP’s Broadcast News Center in Washington, was sitting in his tenth-floor apartment, looking out at the capital, when he ‘saw a “jumbo” tail go by me along Route 395…I just saw the tail go whoosh right past me. In a split second, you heard this boom. A combination of a crack and a thud. It rattled my windows. I thought they were going to blow out.’ For the next five hours, he stayed by his window, broadcasting to the world
Source


Hill pressed him in a hurried phonecall whether he had seen the alleged impact or not. He did not and could not physically see the area in question. He saw the aircraft, felt and heard the explosion. Based on that, he "witnessed an impact".

The aircraft cannot cause the physical damage from the witnessed trajectory. End of story.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Jun 15 2014, 10:21 PM
Post #2





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jun 16 2014, 01:32 PM) *
I'm posting this as I'm sick to the back teeth of seeing Jeff Hill's "9/11 Pentagon Witnesses" video posted on forums, blogs, whereever.

The aircraft cannot cause the physical damage from the witnessed trajectory. End of story.


After one poster's sick back teeth, am I totally off topic by posting that I'm similarly afflicted
by endless discussion on the Pentagon plane trajectory? I agree with
"The aircraft cannot cause the physical damage from the witnessed trajectory"
There was absolutely no damage to the Pentagon that could possibly relate
to any airliner touching the building.
I presume therefore I was never s'posed to take any notice of this post?
Bush and Cheney lied.
End of story?
I wish....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jun 15 2014, 11:01 PM
Post #3





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



I really don't know how to respond to that post. Proof of an inside job bores you?

I will say though that there's been so much shite piled on (to what is basically very straightforward) from all directions and it's still holding its ground.

If it bores you. Mike, don't bother reading it. Problem solved.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jun 15 2014, 11:47 PM
Post #4





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



Nice job in debunking all of Hill's interviews OSS.

Any witness stating they saw the plane banking sharply to the right just as it approached the Pentagon (as one witness of Hill's does) can never say they saw the plane hit the Pentagon because the two actions would be physically impossible to have taken place on this planet with a stock 757.

Bank sharply to the right and fly over the Pentagon; sure.
Bank sharply to the right, hit the light poles and then fly into the Pentagon; physically impossible.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Jun 16 2014, 09:20 AM
Post #5





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 473
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



Frank Legge and others , please take notice.

You must address these glaring contradictions if you want to support the Official Flight Path.

Maybe something else did the damages on the south path, but a large airliner was seen north of the CITGO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jun 16 2014, 11:37 AM
Post #6





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (kawika @ Jun 16 2014, 02:20 PM) *
Frank Legge and others , please take notice.

You must address these glaring contradictions if you want to support the Official Flight Path.

Maybe something else did the damages on the south path, but a large airliner was seen north of the CITGO.


Frank Legge and others have used this video to promote their crap.

Question: where are all of these people these days?

Eric "interviewed Ed Paik and reaffirmed his testimony and then some" Larson (mod at 911blogger who worked with J.REF govt loyalists)?

Adam Larson ("Frustrating Fraud" - wordsmith who claimed that the NOC witnesses were "cointel")

Snowcrash (cowardly troll who conned Chandler and Cole to jump on the "NOC bashing" bandwagon then proceeded to attack them and AE911T - given credit on one of Legge's "pieces")

John Bursill (cowardly troll who claimed that a variety of contradictory Pentagon disinformationists ranging from Frank "official story" Legge to Chris Sarns' NOC impact bs "were on the same page" as long as an aircraft struck the building.

Jeff "NPT advocate who saw the official story light" Hill who went on to also attack AE911T once the ink was dry on the anti CIT/Pilotsfor911Truth disinfo paper.

Cosmo "my uncle was on Flight 93 liar", owner of TruthAction forum (which is also AWOL)

Jim (100 witnesses to an impact) Hoffman and Victoria "Roosevelt Roberts saw the C130 and maybe the hijackers had a booster in the cargo so that mobile phones could be used by passengers" Ashley

Seriously, where are they?


Kawika, there was nothing reported on the "south path". There was damage caused to make it look like an aircraft hit from the south path (maybe that's what you meant?)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jun 23 2014, 10:45 AM
Post #7





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jun 16 2014, 04:47 AM) *
Nice job in debunking all of Hill's interviews OSS.

Any witness stating they saw the plane banking sharply to the right just as it approached the Pentagon (as one witness of Hill's does) can never say they saw the plane hit the Pentagon because the two actions would be physically impossible to have taken place on this planet with a stock 757.

Bank sharply to the right and fly over the Pentagon; sure.
Bank sharply to the right, hit the light poles and then fly into the Pentagon; physically impossible.


Thanks Mike.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
A. Syed
post Jun 30 2014, 12:30 AM
Post #8





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 124
Joined: 17-May 08
Member No.: 3,358



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jun 16 2014, 10:37 AM) *
Frank Legge and others have used this video to promote their crap.

Question: where are all of these people these days?

Eric "interviewed Ed Paik and reaffirmed his testimony and then some" Larson (mod at 911blogger who worked with J.REF govt loyalists)?

Adam Larson ("Frustrating Fraud" - wordsmith who claimed that the NOC witnesses were "cointel")

Snowcrash (cowardly troll who conned Chandler and Cole to jump on the "NOC bashing" bandwagon then proceeded to attack them and AE911T - given credit on one of Legge's "pieces")

John Bursill (cowardly troll who claimed that a variety of contradictory Pentagon disinformationists ranging from Frank "official story" Legge to Chris Sarns' NOC impact bs "were on the same page" as long as an aircraft struck the building.

Jeff "NPT advocate who saw the official story light" Hill who went on to also attack AE911T once the ink was dry on the anti CIT/Pilotsfor911Truth disinfo paper.

Cosmo "my uncle was on Flight 93 liar", owner of TruthAction forum (which is also AWOL)

Jim (100 witnesses to an impact) Hoffman and Victoria "Roosevelt Roberts saw the C130 and maybe the hijackers had a booster in the cargo so that mobile phones could be used by passengers" Ashley

Seriously, where are they?


Kawika, there was nothing reported on the "south path". There was damage caused to make it look like an aircraft hit from the south path (maybe that's what you meant?)


Yes, thanks for the chuckle. That just about sums it up!

Where are they these days? Well, as I've mentioned over at T/S, as recently as October 2013, they were pleading with Mazzucco behind the scenes to retract the Pentagon portion of his film, which shows conclusively how an airliner didn't damage the building even while completely omitting NoC. Fortunately, Mazzucco is no one's fool. He told me in an email that he finds Legge's arguments "unsustainable" and that the Arabesque list of witnesses, being unsourced, is "worthless." I wonder if Gage today in 2014 still believes those two sources represent the cutting edge in Pentagon "research." I speculate that privately he's come around.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Jul 4 2014, 10:06 PM
Post #9





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



Jeff Hill - an idiot masquerading as an idiot.

The Hemphill saga nailed NOC as a fact and took away one of the final witnesses still being used to support the official story path. The fact that Legge et al used that information with astonishing illogicality to suggest it supported the official story exposed the whole bunch as the crooks that they are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jul 5 2014, 09:09 AM
Post #10





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (KP50 @ Jul 5 2014, 03:06 AM) *
Jeff Hill - an idiot masquerading as an idiot.

The Hemphill saga nailed NOC as a fact and took away one of the final witnesses still being used to support the official story path. The fact that Legge et al used that information with astonishing illogicality to suggest it supported the official story exposed the whole bunch as the crooks that they are.


thumbsup.gif
Yea, the whole agenda was to crap all over the NOC evidence. That the aircraft hit no matter what trajectory it took. They used the same tactics as MSM/GLs in pushing the official story. Troll-avoid-censor-repeat. Then label researchers and investigators "conspiracy theorists" ("9/11 truth fringe" rolleyes.gif)

And it was just a waste of tme and energy "debating" with them. The cowards refuse a face to face debate and used these dickheads to push arguments online that they wouldn't have the balls to say in person in fromt of a camera.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Jan 10 2019, 05:15 PM
Post #11





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jul 6 2014, 01:09 AM) *
thumbsup.gif
Yea, the whole agenda was to crap all over the NOC evidence. That the aircraft hit no matter what trajectory it took. They used the same tactics as MSM/GLs in pushing the official story. Troll-avoid-censor-repeat. Then label researchers and investigators "conspiracy theorists" ("9/11 truth fringe" rolleyes.gif)

And it was just a waste of tme and energy "debating" with them. The cowards refuse a face to face debate and used these dickheads to push arguments online that they wouldn't have the balls to say in person in fromt of a camera.


It's amazing that 4.5 years later, this "debate" still rumbles on with Chandler at al weighing in to prove that they are also incapable of logical thought. Task achieved I suppose as anyone genuinely interested will be deflected by the "controversial nature" of the topic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th January 2019 - 06:37 AM