Jeff Hill aka Pumpitout, no longer a no planer

[Len Colby]

From the JREF forum, posted by TAM:

The following email exchange is posted with permission from both correspondents. I have gotten rid of the email addresses for the sake of the two, though neither asked me to do so. It is the only edit I have done to the original exchange. I am posting it, not FOR someone, but because I felt it needed to be posted. The emails are in reverse order, so read them from bottom to top.

Quote:

From: SHURE Dj [mailto:*****]

Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 11:42 AM

To: Ronald Wieck

Subject: RE: I have a qestion!

Hey Ron,

Post whatever you want.

Take care,

Jeff

From: ******

To: ******

Subject: RE: I have a qestion!

Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 10:51:24 -0400

Dear Jeff,

Would you grant me permission to have your e-mail posted on the JREF? I have two purposes: to confound the idiot “bill smith” who persists in citing you as a no-planer and to show that you are serious about learning the truth about the 9/11 attacks.

Best,

Ron

From: SHURE Dj [mailto:*****]

Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 5:22 PM

To: Ronald Wieck

Subject: RE: I have a qestion!

Hey Ron,

Thanks for the response!

I believe a plane hit the Pentagon because I have recenlty talked to many witnesses that saw it hit with their own eyes.

Since I started talking to Pentagon witnesses I have been getting attacked by Craig and his flyover followers who are babbling NOC is scientifically proven fact that a plane did not hit.

I am also being attacked by Rob Balsamo for the same thing. I also called him out on the "impossible speed" garbage telling him he misrepresented it as I did.

I just can't understand how these people can be so stupid to believe the stuff they are pushing because they come across as pretty smart people. I admit I was stupid for believing the stuff I did, but at least I have admitted I was wrong. I don't think they can use stupidity as an excuse!

Sorry for the arguments we had in the past. You were right and I was wrong, but I still don't believe the official story. Who knows, maybe someday I will, but I doubt it.

Take care,

Jeff

From: *****

To: *****

Subject: RE: I have a qestion!

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:35:47 -0400

Jeff,

Ranke’s flyover nonsense does not rise to the level of a theory as it fails on every level.

First, imagine someone proposing the plan to the council of super-villains:

“We aim the Boeing 757 straight at the Pentagon, then pull up at the last second and fly over the building.”

“How many G’s would the pilot be pulling?”

“Uh, how should I know?”

“Is this maneuver aerodynamically possible?”

“Beats the hell out of me.”

“I’ve got a better question. Wouldn’t EVERYBODY notice a plane just missing the Pentagon? How could we possibly sell the idea that the plane crashed when hundreds, if not thousands, of people would have seen with their own eyes that it didn’t, that it flew over the building instead?”

“That part of the plan needs some work.”

“Back up for a moment. Isn’t the idea to make it appear as though a commercial airliner crashed into the Pentagon?”

Yeah, that’s the idea.”

“So, you’re saying that we DON’T crash a commercial airliner into the Pentagon??”

“Um….”

The second stumbling block is that absolutely NOBODY phoned a call-in radio show or wrote a letter-to-the-editor to protest that the plane didn’t crash. NOBODY actually saw a flyover.

That brings us to the biggest stumbling block—the statistical improbability.

On September 11, 2001, events in NYC and Washington, D.C. were unfolding during rush hour. Thousands of people were on their way to work. How many witnesses do you suppose there were to the final moments of AA77? Three thousand? Two thousand? Only a thousand? Pick the lowest estimate you’re comfortable with. Then visualize the flight path of the plane, as determined by the FAA and the NTSB, as an arrow on a map. Finally, imagine that each witness represents a dot on that map and ask yourself what you’d expect to see. I’ll help: you would expect to see a cluster of a few hundred dots surrounding the arrow describing the actual flight path, with dots diminishing in volume as they spread out in either direction. At the two extremes to the right and left of the arrow, we’d see a handful of outliers.

What do Ranke and Marquis show us? BINGO! They show us one set of outliers. By concentrating entirely on the nine or ten outliers who describe an impossible north-of-CITGO path, they leave out EVERYBODY ELSE. The reason nobody takes the CIT-heads seriously is that they are incapable of figuring out what is wrong with their fantasy. They always tell you about the ten people whose accounts fit their pre-conceived hypothesis (note that NONE of their own witnesses observed a flyover), but they simply ignore everybody else.

Why don’t they have five hundred north-of-CITGO witnesses? Why do they have ZERO flyover witnesses? Visualizing their theory, the map shows ten outliers and NOTHING ELSE. Where did everybody go?

No, they will never get it. How about you?

Ron

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=186514

[Evan Burton]

It's been the same all the way through. When one of Balsamo's technical experts decided that the evidence did not point the way Balsamo wanted to, and publicly disagreed with him, Balsamo denounced him and even made threats against him. He's mentally unstable.