New FAA "Flight 77" flight path animation shows north of citgo approach

The CIT approach to this investigation from the start has been to not accept data that has been controlled and provided for by the suspect (the government) as valid evidence.

That is the only logical approach to any investigation and we will stay true to that logic and question government provided data that might seem to support our conclusions just as much as we would data that supports the official story.

Last week, 1 day after the 7th anniversary of the attacks, the FAA released yet another animation of the alleged flight path of "Flight 77" via FOIA:


cover letter from FAA

As you can see they have the plane crossing over from the south to the north side of Columbia Pike just over the Navy Annex exactly like Ed Paik and all of the NoC witnesses describe.




This is irreconcilable with all other official data, reports, and all physical damage yet matches perfectly with this:









This new official government released animation was allegedly created based off radar data from Reagan National Airport.

Why they would release an animation showing an approach that is irreconcilable with all physical damage and all other data is a mystery to be sure, but considering the fact that this is where all of the witnesses in the area unanimously saw the plane fly, we can not simply write it off as a "coincidence".

Our biggest problem with it is that the independent verifiable evidence we have obtained supports a flight path over DC with the plane coming from east of the Potomac River something like this:


But this new animation shows a loop more similar to what the 2006 released NTSB data shows:



So while it does depict a north side final approach we do not believe this is honestly depicting true radar data for the Pentagon attack jet.

But the precise north side banking maneuver depicted can not simply be an accident or coincidence given all the independent evidence proving a general approach of this nature.

This was clearly created for a reason.

It may simply be an obfuscation effort to make it seem like there is a large enough margin of error between north or south of the citgo that it would be an easy "mistake" to make.

But to eyewitnesses on the ground in the critical areas with the critical vantage points, this is simply not the case. And there is absolutely zero room for error in the south side approach flight path most obviously due to the downed light poles, the cab, and the generator trailer.

The incredible timing of this release should not go unmentioned since of course we only recently obtained and released all of the additional validation of this north side banking flight path from the witnesses at Arlington Cemetery only 6 weeks prior and Pilots for 9/11 Truth released their new presentation with animations of their own depicting virtually the exact same bank only one day prior with a trailer 8 days prior.



What's actually comical about this is how hard the pseudo-skeptics tried to claim this flight path is "impossible"!


Would the FAA really go out of their way to animate something so precise and deliberate with such a drastic bank if it was "impossible"?

I think not.




[edit on 15-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Bump! Hey debunkers, no comments?? I thought for sure you would be able to debunk the FAA animation or at least explain which official story is correct: NTSB or FAA?

Come on pony up and support the official BS we are being fed by the Feds!

Wait, now I get it....the FAA releases this information to cover the arses of the ANC and Pentagon employees, while the NTSB releases their version to cover the USA Today parade, the damage pattern, and those pesky light poles.

What is next, another version to cover for the 11+ G's needed to pull out of the high speed dive?

Or perhaps another version to cover for the flyover witness?

Craig is very very deceitful.
He has simply repackaged that video under his Youtube username but that video is from back in 2001 yet craig is here today LYING about it being new.
What a fraud you are.
So desperate you will do anything.

Originally posted by TheBobert
Craig is very very deceitful.
He has simply repackaged that video under his Youtube username but that video is from back in 2001 yet craig is here today LYING about it being new.
What a fraud you are.
So desperate you will do anything.

Just to be sure, can you back up what your saying there?

reply to post by talisman


Of course he is wrong.

Regardless of when it was created (which can never be definitively proven), as I said, it was first released last week, September 12th 2008 via FOIA.


I provided the cover letter from the FAA in the OP to prove it.

cover letter here


However I do need to make one correction in the OP, we don't really know exactly what data this was allegedly based off.

So I retract the statement that it was allegedly based off radar data from Reagan National Airport.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

I don't think that he is making a judgment as you seem to imply.
Discussion of this video in more depth can be found here:
forums.randi.org...

Hey Craig how is it going with providing evidence of your claims that civilian contractors planted explosives at the Pentagon?

Craig,
Isnt this the video that John Farmer obtained?
Just the other day you posted this about this very video

This data/animation is nothing but fraudulent government supplied information.

You even said that about John Farmer:

Never forget the source of this new "data".....the government who is the suspect.

Plus John Farmer is the messenger and he has proven himself erratic, illogical, out of control, contradictory, and beyond suspicious.

He is not honest yet he is the sole conduit for all this government supplied data.

Look at his smug way of disseminating the info.

z3.invisionfree.com...

Why all of a sudden are you embracing John Farmer?

Oh wait I think I figured it out Craig by your post here

Ok.....what this data means is that people who DO accept government data as valid evidence are now forced to move towards believing the north side approach.

If you put the evidence in a "statistical process control" chart it would be off the hook in favor of north side.

But WE do not have to embrace it since the witnesses already prove the north side approach anyway.

So in essence it gives us more fire to throw in their faces while we can remain as non-committal on it as we want.

Yeah! I like the sounds of that!

What a fun game you play!
You seem to relish "fire to throw in their faces" more then you are interested in bringing evidence of mass murder to a court.
You trust the government as long as it supports your fantasy.
Got it, thanks.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by TheBobert]

More related interesting info....
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...

John Farmer info
911files.info...
Ok Farmer claims the file modification date of the video Craig has posted is Sept 2001
911files.info...
[edit on 16-9-2008 by TheBobert]

[edit on 16-9-2008 by TheBobert]

Reheat is deathly afraid of this thread too.

He has completely ignored it even at jref!

I wonder why he has such a problem with the FAA's flight path.

OK, what about lamp poles now?

OK, what about lamp poles now?

posted by TheBobert
Craig is very very deceitful.
He has simply repackaged that video under his Youtube username but that video is from back in 2001 yet craig is here today LYING about it being new.
What a fraud you are.
So desperate you will do anything.

posted by talisman
Just to be sure, can you back up what your saying there?

No, TheBobert is lying as usual. The FAA released this video which has been in their possession for a long time, by FOIA lawsuit on 9-12-2008. It shows the flight path over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo as witnessed by the CIT eyewitnesses. Of course, the FAA still has not corrected the IMPOSSIBLE impact with the Pentagon nor the never happened fraudulent loop southwest of the Pentagon, but give them time.

Apparently a disagreement has erupted among the Federal agencies protecting the 9-11 perps and the FAA has decided to try to save some of their own butts. I wonder which will be the 2nd Federal agency to turn on the BOSS?

1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Download the FAA original animation - right-click and save to hard drive



Pilots For 9/11 Truth has also published a new video concerning the same flight path. Rob has now provided the full video for download to your hard drive. The IPOD version downloads as a mp4. Find a player for mp4s and install it to your computer and share it with your family and friends. However the DVD version is a much better quality and helps support more good patriotic investigation into the 9-11 Inside Job Attack On America. The mp4 version is pretty good.

9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON - Official Release

Google Video Link

posted by TheBobert
What a fun game you play!
You seem to relish "fire to throw in their faces" more then you are interested in bringing evidence of mass murder to a court.
You trust the government as long as it supports your fantasy.
Got it, thanks.

*SNIP* Mod edit: Insult removed.

Why haven't mainstream journalists enquired into this recent FAA release? It is not newsworthy? Why not? Why has it only been private citizens tracking this information? Why was it not Mainstream News Media journalists who discovered the CIT eyewitnesses? Private citizens had to track them down? The worthless SOB Mainstream News Media would sure the hell have not tracked them down and administered justice. Never. It is not the job of free society journalists to administer justice? Why not?

Journalists certainly do have that power when they suspect a convicted murderer is really innocent as he has claimed, and they persistently pursue the issue until a higher court decides to intervene and overturn the conviction.

The Mainstream News Media certainly does have the power to administer justice when a corrupt criminal politician who has escaped justice is continuously hounded, until a cowardly justice department is finally forced to intervene and bring him to justice.

An uncorruptable Free Press has tremendous influence in a free society. Where has OUR prostitute Free Press been for the past dozen or so years? Have they totally sold their integrity to their corporate masters? They should have been pursuing all of these witnesses on their own a long time ago.

When the FBI confiscated and censored the Arlington County 9-11 call-ins and transcripts for 9-11-2001 and the days following and ordered the media to stay away, a truly free Mainstream News Media would have told them to go to Hell and sought out every person who could have called-in on those 9-11 tapes. They would have gone door to door in the area and advertized for driver witnesses to call the news desk to schedule interviews. The potential for new and interesting evidence and eywitness accounts would have been well worth their time.

But they did not do that did they? No. Instead they essentially placed a ban on interviewing persons who might not support the official fairy tale. The Center for Military History censored their hundreds of interviews, and when ordered to release a dozen interviews by FOIA lawsuit, they redacted those names and personal information to prevent anyone contacting them.

But private citizens, using their own personal funds, managed to track down those redacted persons and reinterview them, and a few others. One of them, Darius Prather had not even been released yet, but his account was one of the strongest of the Arlington Cemetery accounts. The CMH account of Darius Prather agrees completely with the previously released CIT interview. The CIT interview is much more detailed, with video and much more thorough interviewing.

Have any of these prostitute Mainstream News Media journalists interviewed any of these CIT eyewitnesses since their accounts have been published by CIT? No? Of course not. These bought and paid for corporate journalists are not with us, they are against us. They are our enemies and we Americans should treat them accordingly.




Right-click to download CMH recently released Darius Prather interview to your hard drive
Darius Prather CMH interview - 21 mb


Courtesy Is Mandatory: Read this link

[edit on 10/27/2008 by Hal9000]

posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Last week, 1 day after the 7th anniversary of the attacks, the FAA released yet another animation of the alleged flight path of "Flight 77" via FOIA:

As you can see they have the plane crossing over from the south to the north side of Columbia Pike just over the Navy Annex exactly like Ed Paik and all of the NoC witnesses describe.

Can anybody out there explain why supposedly free speech and free press Mainstream News Media journalists have not cornered FAA officials and demanded to know why they have released a video on 9-12-2008 completely contradicting the official Flight 77 flight path south of the Naval Annex and through the light poles and allegedly into the Pentagon? Shouldn't that be big news? Where has OUR free society news media disappeared to?



Supposedly America is a free society and OUR free press should be doing its job, to preserve OUR freedoms, by reporting and getting to the bottom of such remarkable reverses in official 9-11 evidence. Since the two flight paths are so remarkably different, a person might wonder which flight path was a LIE; the original official Flight 77 flight path or the new decoy aircraft flight path over the Naval Annex as verified by the Arlington National Cemetery eyewitnesses and Citgo eyewitnesses and further CIT eyewitnesses. Where is OUR news media?



Any journalist on his own, no matter how befuddled and nagged by network ratings, should be able to figure out that the flight path over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo cannot possibly take out the five light poles and complete the path of destruction through the Pentagon 1st floor. A child could comprehend it. Have OUR journalists betrayed us?



And why hasn't the mainstream News Media contacted the new eyewitnesses found and reinterviewed by CIT, especially the Arlington National Cemetery eyewitnesses originally interviewed by the Center for Military History way back in 2001? Of course their testimonies were censored from the American people, but now we have their eyewitness accounts thanks to CIT. Shouldn't that also be big news, especially with the FAA releasing a different official flight path at the Pentagon?

What are OUR supposedly free press journalists up to? Are they HIDING truth from us or reporting truth for us? I think ALL Americans deserve an answer from what was OUR free press. Don't you?

By the way, the new Lloyde England interview is a real eye opener. It is quite long and fascinating. I would love to see Lloyde England hauled before a state level grand jury or empowered and public congressional committee, given total immunity from prosecution, and let the chips fall where they may.

Lloyde England and his Cab:The Eye of the Storm coming soon folks.


Mod edit: Large quote removed from previous post.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10/27/2008 by Hal9000]

I have already proven CIT's claims are silly and that Craig Ranke has no evidence that AA77 flew over the Pentagon.

Pentagon View Shed Analysis #1

I'm going to take a look at CIT's claim of a "flyover" from a realistic perspective by showing a View Shed analysis of the topography around the Pentagon to demonstrate the visibility of any aircraft flying over the Pentagon from any location in the area.

This analysis is not needed in any way to refute CIT's claims. Numerous individuals have easily refuted all of CIT's claims (despite angry denials to the contrary) here and on other forums. Reheat has done a masterful job right here. I am doing this because it just further illustrates why CIT refuses to deal with evidence and eyewitness reports.

A View Shed Analysis is a common feature of GIS software
and is used to determine the optimal placement and height of transmission antennas intended for television, radio, public utility, microwave, phone, and cell phone usage. It's use is intended for hilly or mountainous areas where topography presents obstructions in direct line-of-sight transmissions, or broadest area coverage, between transmitters and receivers.

I've done a View Shed analysis to illustrate a fundamental problem CIT has with its claims that a "flyover" took place - but no such "flyover" has ever been reported.

CIT claims that one eyewitness, one Roosevelt Roberts, stated that he saw a jet fly over the Pentagon and then took a route to the left over the Potomac River, flying south of The Mall. This is the only eyewitness CIT has ever presented to a so-called "flyover" after persistent requests for eyewitnesses for a long time.

CIT now claims that this sole, apparent eyewitness, "proves" that a "flyover" took place in a planned, calculated deception by the "government" to deceive people into believing a passenger jet, American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757, hit the Pentagon.

CIT has stated, for the record, that interviews with 13 other "eyewitnesses" have demonstrated conclusively that AA77 flew on the "north side of the Citgo gas station rather than the south side as the government has claimed," thereby flying a route to the Pentagon that, if it had crashed into the Pentagon, would have produced damage entirely inconsistent with the observed damage. (Not insignificantly, each of CIT's 13 eyewitnesses were in a position to see an aircraft approach the Pentagon.)

Therefore, CIT concludes, the observed jet could not have flown into the Pentagon but, consistent with the statements of 14 "eyewitnesses" CIT found, the jet must have flown over the Pentagon to land in parts unknown. Furthermore, CIT claims, a deliberate deception was planned so that, as the jet began its flyover, a pre-planted bomb in the Pentagon, at the intersection of the flight path of the jet, was detonated producing both an explosion and smoke that obscured the view of the 13 apparent eyewitnesses CIT relies on for its claim that a flyover took place.

I have confined my study to the claim that a "flyover" could have taken place without there being eyewitnesses anywhere on the far side of the Pentagon whose views would never have been obscured by the explosion and subsequent smoke column.

Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, sole members of CIT, the "Citizens Investigation Team," have declared individually and separately that no other eyewitnesses to a "flyover" are required. They put their sole trust in 13 eyewitnesses whom they readily acknowledge whose views of an actual flyover would have been obscured by the "explosion" and resultant smoke column at the Pentagon. There remains the one eyewitness, Roosevelt Roberts, on whom CIT's entire claim that a "flyover" took place rests.

The observation comes immediately to mind that if a flyover took place whose flight path would take the jet over and within view of a densely populated geographic area as it flew away from the Pentagon - and the explosion that took place - including heavily-traveled freeways and bridges, should there not be eyewitness reports from a wide geographic area on the other side of the Pentagon in which no topographical obstructions existed? CIT has been asked that question repeatedly and the response has either been that those eyewitnesses are not needed or, "do your own investigation."

The topography around Washington includes obvious obstructions of buildings, trees, overpasses, etc., which are not included in this first run. Obviously, a person standing behind trees or buildings obstructing the view toward the Pentagon, or looking in a different direction altogether, isn't going to witness a plane over the Pentagon as an explosion takes place there. That changes, of course, as the plane moves forward, climbs, and turns.

What is the probability that a such "flyover" could take place in a densely populated metropolis, with many drivers on various roads and bridges around the Pentagon, a spectacular explosion and smoke alerting numerous motorists, and unrefuted testimony that a jet was seen approaching and crashing into the Pentagon at high speed?

I am not in a position to calculate such a probability, but I am in a position to define the extent of the geographic area in which a plane over the Pentagon could have been easily seen.

In this view, I have deliberately limited the range to the jet to two miles, a reasonable distance in which an aircraft the size of a 757 would draw attention moving away from the Pentagon after an explosion. Of course, the jet can been easily at a further distance away.

This instantaneous view places the jet at 100 feet above ground level (not above the building itself) over the central courtyard of the Pentagon. The yellow-shaded area shows the geographic areas up to two miles away from that jet in which a person whose eyesight is five feet above the ground could see that jet, given the observation limitations of structures and vegetation outlined above. Any person within the two-mile range not shaded yellow would be unable to see a jet 100 feet above the ground over the Pentagon courtyard. As one can see, these are very few. It should be obvious as the jet moves forward, and climbs, on a flight path away from the Pentagon, the geographical area at a two-mile range expands, opportunity for it to be observed increases, and the number of potential eyewitnesses increases.



It should also be obvious how the potential for drivers on the freeways and bridges, whose positions are changing and whose attention is necessarily on their surroundings, are in an excellent position to see a jet fly away from the Pentagon, many of whom would see the jet in a direct line of sight to the fireball rising from the Pentagon.

Yet there are no such reports.

This View Shed analysis illustrates the tremendous problem CIT has in facing the probability that many numbers of eyewitnesses would most certainly have seen a flyover take place from a large geographic area and that no such reports have ever surfaced. It also illustrates why CIT refuses to look for any such eyewitnesses. We can imagine many drivers stuck in freeway traffic seeing the explosion at the Pentagon, immediately followed by a jet flying fast and climbing from the direction of the Pentagon. Some would reasonably think there is a connection - perhaps the aircraft dropped a bomb.

But the big problem for CIT is a very reasonable situation. These people who would have seen a flyover would wonder why there were no subsequent media reports of a flyover. Would not even a handful contact media outlets, each competing with each other for breaking news, and say, "Wait a minute! There was a jet flying away from the Pentagon right after the explosion!"

End of story. CIT is fully debunked and Craig Ranke knows it.



[edit on 28-10-2008 by jthomas]

Posted by jthomas aka johnwood
I have already proven CIT's claims are silly and that Craig Ranke has no evidence that AA77 flew over the Pentagon.

You have proven no such thing. You have proven that you make up bogus lists of a thousand witnesses and disinformation out of thin air. You have proven that there is no limit to your lies.

It is not necessary to prove where a criminal escaped to. It is only necessary to prove a crime was committed. All we want is a new thorough honest investigation into 9-11. You want to prevent rooting out and punishment of the 9-11 perpetrators. You want to keep Americans in the dark; mesmerized by their boob tubes.

The decoy aircraft has been PROVEN over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo, therefore IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THAT SAME AIRCRAFT TO ACCOMPLISH THE OFFICIAL DESTRUCTION PATTERN AT THE PENTAGON. Crimes of murder and treason have been committed and a new investigation is necessary to ensure justice.

Tracking down eyewitnesses at a restricted military reservation or from the highway immediately surrounding the Pentagon would be nearly impossible for independent citizen investigators, because it is illegal to stop your vehicle in the area and attempt to question passersby and the building is off-limits to citizens. What we really need is a new independent fully empowered 9-11 investigation with full subpoena powers and a hostile witness and frightened witness and whistleblower protection authority through the US Marshals Witness Protection Program to encourage 9-11 eyewitnesses to safely come forward and give their testimonies.

Obviously military personnel at the Pentagon have been ordered to LIE by the Defense Department, and obtaining forthright interviews from such personnel would be extremely difficult, even if an independent investigator could find personnel who were stationed at the Pentagon during 9-11. April Gallup by her own testimony was ordered to LIE by the Defense Department and she refused. She witnessed NO JET FUEL inside the Pentagon and NO baggage and NO seats and NO passengers and NO sign of an aircraft, and she was officially only 35-45 feet from ground zero.

Guns and Butter broadcast with Dave von Kleist interviewing April Gallup. There was an explosion and she crawled out from E-Ring through the hole onto the Pentagon lawn. She saw no jet fuel and nobody burned with jet fuel. She and her baby boy were about 35-45 feet from the alleged impact hole and no jet fuel was splashed on them. What happened to the huge infernos and fuel-air explosions inside which allegedly incinerated all the aircraft parts and engines and wheel hubs and baggage and seats?

Guns and Butter April Gallup - audio live testimony

How exactly would any citizen investigator question 1000 people in the Pentagon?

Walk up, knock on the door, and state "Hello, I need to question 1000 of your people who were allegedly here in the Pentagon on 9-11-2001 through 9-15-2001 allegedly accessing some kind of wreckage. Here's this list that jthomas researched for me, but its missing about 965 names. So I thought I could update that list from you guys. If they have been transferred to another duty station, I will require that information also. If they have left military service, I will require their last known home address. I have my video recorder guy and stenographer here to record my interrogations. So just let me past that guard station so I can get started."

"Hey, put me down."

For that matter, how could any citizen investigator find and question any persons who might have been driving along the roads and bridges east of the Pentagon 7 years ago on 9-11-2001? That task would be extremely difficult for an organized Mainstream Media project with multiple reporters and cameramen and a big budget.

No jthomas will never cease with nor apologize for his bogus claims

Originally posted by SPreston

Posted by jthomas aka johnwood
I have already proven CIT's claims are silly and that Craig Ranke has no evidence that AA77 flew over the Pentagon.

You have proven no such thing. You have proven that you make up bogus lists of a thousand witnesses and disinformation out of thin air. You have proven that there is no limit to your lies.

The list of where the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage from inside the Pentagon was provided to Craig Ranke and Aldo over two years ago. Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis BOTH refused to interview any of those people and they are on record of refusing to do so. If you don't know that then you are really gullible.

Let's provide the big list again:

Emergency Response, Rescue Operations, Firefighting, Secondary Explosions

Conspiracists are afraid to have their fantasies destroyed, so they scrupulously avoid contacting the hundreds of Pentagon 9/11 first responders and the over 8,000 people who worked on rescue, recovery, evidence collection, building stabilization, and security in the days after 9/11. These are just some of the organizations whose members worked on the scene:

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Everyone can see why Craig and Aldo refused to interview them and get their statements.

Now, when it is quite clear that my analysis demonstrates conclusively that there had to have been dozens of eyewitnesses to any plane flying over and away from the Pentagon, low, and fast moving after the explosion, CIT and it's apologists, went into hysterical denial.

Imagine CIT trying to prove there was a flyover but go completely hysterical when asked for the necessary eyewitnesses that they need!

Not only that, both CIt and P4T were skewered by the same GIS software showing that AA77 would not have gone through any high g forces in flying directly over the annex antenna, hitting the light poles, and then hitting the Pentagon.

So, you see, it was quite simple to corner both CIT and P4T and easily show that both could not support their claims of a flyover.

I easily demonstrated using off-the-shelf GIS software that CIT cannot deal with the implications and consequences of its claims. No matter how much CIT pretends that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon, Craig Ranke is completely unable to demonstrate the alternative.

All it took was just asking questions to let Craig Ranke completely dissemble into meaningless babble.

So, SPreston, you can no longer pretend that the CIT charade is real. CIT is fully debunked, and not only by me. I just showed what happens when nutters like CIT don't plot their schemes far enough ahead to deal with the implications their claims lead to.

Let's celebrate! CIT is finished. And you know it, SPreston.

Originally posted by jthomas
Imagine CIT trying to prove there was a flyover but go completely hysterical when asked for the necessary eyewitnesses that they need!

Imagine jthomas trying to prove that AA77 allegedly crashed but go completely hysterical when asked for the alleged parts to be formally identified by serial numbers.

Imagine jthomas trying to prove that AA77 allegedly crashed but go completely hysterical when asked for the video evidence to be shown, to help identify the alleged plane.

Wait, I don't have to imagine either of those scenarios, as that's what jthomas does when he's asked for serial numbers and video evidence. He waves his hands and goes hysterical and calls everyone asking the questions 'intellectually dishonest'.