Why does CIT have NO eyewitnesses to a flyover?

Originally posted by jthomas
I am simply asking for people here to stay on topic and provide verifiable eyewitness testimony that an jet aircraft was seen flying low and at high speed over and away from the Pentagon as claimed by CIT and P4T as clearly presented in the first post of this thread.

Well, I tried to, but apparently someone whined that I was a little too tough, so my last post was poop-canned.

So, an abbreviated version.

CIT has no "fly over" witnesses because there was no fly-over. It would be easy to find any that exist though advertisements in the WAPO or the Wash Times and flyers distributed throughout Crystal City and such, but that apparently is too difficult. A proper "investigative" organization would formally request interviews with "witnesses" through proper channels, i.e. the Pentagon Public Affairs organization for Pentagon employees and through the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority to talk to Reagan National tower employees that day.

Post Request for Interview flyers on all the telephone poles throughout the Arlington/Pentagon/Crystal City area as well as on the DC side of the Potomac, since that is where the plane was headed, according to *some* fly-over advocates.

Bottom line, though, regardless of the way Ranke spins it, an airplane the size of half a football field, at "50 to less than 100 feet" above a 2,000+ car parking lot, arcing over an additional 3,000+ parking lot at 9:40 am outside a building that holds 25,000 people, would *not* be missed or discounted as a "routine" flight since Reagan National is around a mile away. That is just absurd.

There aren't any "fly over" witnesses because there was no fly over.

Originally posted by cashlink

What these so call witness are saying what they saw was imposable.

We aren't discussing those eyewitnesses. We are looking for verifiable eyewitnesses who saw a jet fly over and away from the Pentagon. None have been presented.

Stick to the topic at hand and help CIT find those crucial and necessary eyewitnesses.

posted by SPreston
Didn't you forget something? Didn't Turcios describe an aircraft pull up at the Hwy 27 overhead sign? How can a large aircraft pull up and still hit the building 1st floor? Since no light poles were knocked down along that flight path, then the aircraft had to be 40+ feet above ground level along that entire flight path. Correct?

posted by jthomas
I am asking you to provide the verified eyewitness evidence that any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon as claimed by both CIT and P4T.

I'll ask you again to please stick to the topic of this thread.

Entirely within topic which is eyewitnesses to a flyover, of which Robert Turcios is a potential flyover eyewitness. Perhaps the knowledge is locked within his subconscious which a good hypnotist under a good courtroom managed procedure could draw out.



Turcios witnessed the decoy aircraft flying above him and North of the Citgo. He also witnessed a pull up over Hwy 27 which was a potential prelude to a flyover. Any sane person must admit that if the decoy aircraft was a large plane such as a 90 ton 757, then once the pull up was iinitiated and carried out, it would be impossible for the large aircraft to return to level flight at ground level in about a 700 foot flight distance. Besides the light poles laying on the ground were far to the south out of reach, and the damage angle into the Pentagon 1st floor would be entirely wrong.





[edit on 11/19/08 by SPreston]

reply to post by jthomas


Easy.. We know that the amazing amount of witnesses proves the flight trajectory. It is simply unbelievable to say that they're all wrong about the way it flew. We also know that the physical damage doesn't add up. Normally, we could say "Well, physical evidence is more important" but other witnesses give us a more believable answer to this mystery that accounts for all the evidence.. not just the physical evidence. These other witnesses are the ones who speak of a 'pull up' and the ones who speak of another jet flying over the Pentagon after the explosion.

1 (North Side witnesses) + 1 (Physical damage) + 1 ('Pull Up') + 1 (Jet flying over the building after the explosion) = 4 (Flyover).

Originally posted by SPreston

Entirely within topic which is eyewitnesses to a flyover, of which Robert Turcios is a potential flyover eyewitness. Perhaps the knowledge is locked within his subconscious which a good hypnotist under a good courtroom managed procedure could draw out.

We are not concerned with speculation, only verified eyewitnesses to a jet flying over and away from the pentagon.

He also witnessed a pull up over Hwy 27 which was a potential prelude to a flyover. Any sane person must admit that if the decoy aircraft was a large plane such as a 90 ton 757, then once the pull up was iinitiated and carried out, it would be impossible for the large aircraft to return to level flight at ground level in about a 700 foot flight distance. Besides the light poles laying on the ground were far to the south out of reach, and the damage angle into the Pentagon 1st floor would be entirely wrong.

Again, we are not concerned with speculations of so-called "decoy" aircraft or "potential preludes." We are not concerned with any speculation.

We want positive, verified eyewitness or media reports that an actual flyover took place. You need to demonstrate that the jet actually flew over and away from the Pentagon.

No such evidence has ever been presented. Every one of CIT's eyewitnesses either saw the jet hit the Pentagon or believed it did. None ever stated seeing an actual jet fly over and away from the Pentagon as CIT's and P4T's theory requires.

I don't think it should be necessary to keep reminding posters to keep on topic. We are neither concerned with people who did not witness a jet actually flyover and away from the Pentagon. We are not concerned in this thread with speculation but only with actual positive, verified evidence.

You can speculate all you want on your own thread, SPreston, but this thread is for actual evidence and none has yet been presented.

Please stick to the topic.




[edit on 19-11-2008 by jthomas]

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by jthomas

 

Easy.. We know that the amazing amount of witnesses proves the flight trajectory. It is simply unbelievable to say that they're all wrong about the way it flew. We also know that the physical damage doesn't add up. Normally, we could say "Well, physical evidence is more important" but other witnesses give us a more believable answer to this mystery that accounts for all the evidence.. not just the physical evidence. These other witnesses are the ones who speak of a 'pull up' and the ones who speak of another jet flying over the Pentagon after the explosion.

1 (North Side witnesses) + 1 (Physical damage) + 1 ('Pull Up') + 1 (Jet flying over the building after the explosion) = 4 (Flyover).

If it were easy there would never be any discussion on this subject to begin with.

The fact is that every eyewitness presented by CIT and P4T to date either saw a jet hit the Pentagon or believed it did. NONE ever reported any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon.

Originally posted by SPreston
Perhaps the knowledge is locked within his subconscious which a good hypnotist under a good courtroom managed procedure could draw out.

Not certain what I can say about this comment that wouldn't get my post deleted.

So I'll just say uh-huh. If that is the best you can come up with, we're definitely into the mop-up phase of this whole thing.

reply to post by jthomas


Jthomas , there is not proof of who saw what! Not everything you are asking for is available, and who are we to judge who is lying? There are too many conflicting eye witness reports of the whole event, however the Government conspirators will cherry pick what witness they want us to believe and try to discredit every one else.

He said, she said who cares at this point I gave you eye witness that did see another airplane fly over the pentagon, maybe they were not the CIT however they were eye witness. Just as I though, you would do, you just hand wave what they saw because it dose not supports the Government cover up.

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by jthomas

 

Jthomas , there is not proof of who saw what! Not everything you are asking for is available, and who are we to judge who is lying? There are too many conflicting eye witness reports of the whole event, however the Government conspirators will cherry pick what witness they want us to believe and try to discredit every one else.

Cashlink, you cannot assume as a conclusion of your argument what it is you are trying to prove. That is called arguing in a circle.

You and all 9/11 Truthers are trying to prove that the Government is responsible for 9/11. You cannot assume as you do that there are "Government conspirators" and then use that as a conclusion that anyone is out to discredit you.

So you are obligated to support your claims with evidence and so is CIT and P4T and every other Truther. In fact, there is not one stitch of evidence that any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon as is required by CIT's theory.

He said, she said who cares at this point I gave you eye witness that did see another airplane fly over the pentagon, maybe they were not the CIT however they were eye witness.

And I already told you that neither the C-130 or E4B eyewitnesses are relevant to CIT's claim I am discussing here. Everybody KNOWS that the C-130 flew over the Pentagon at a much higher altitude after the explosion and everybody KNOWS that the E4B was circling at high altitude over head.

Just as I though, you would do, you just hand wave what they saw because it dose not supports the Government cover up.

Again, you commit the fallacy of arguing in circles. You need to prove your claim that there was a "government cover up" and you haven't done so in seven years.

As you admit you cannot provide any positive, verifiable, eyewitness or media reports of a jet flying over and away from the Pentagon as CIT and P4T claim, you need not respond.

reply to post by jthomas


Let us look at this scenario.

This example might appear silly to some, but the essence is absolutely irreproachable.

jtomas is driving along the highway when further ahead he sees a naked good looking girl by the side of the road hitchhiking. (The reason she is there, is unimportant)
As he comes closer, saying wtf to himself, he suddenly hear a mighty explosion, and
looking in the direction of the sound he sees a huge fireball rise up and smoke billowing
out and around.

jthomas can react in several ways:

1. He can be so besotted with the look of the naked girl, that he immediately turn his
stare toward her again and ignore the raging fires.

2. He can react as normal people do by again saying WTF, but even louder this time,
thinking "I must stop the car to see what's going on", forgetting for a moment the
naked girl.
In order to stop the car, he looks in the back mirror to check how close cars behind
him are. He then looks ahead to see if it is safe to stop. He stops. He see that other
cars have stopped. He looks around for the naked girl, but she is nowhere to be
found. His attention is again drawn to the fire.

3. jthomas has no interest in naked girls nor in huge explosions, and drives on
unaffected and unimpressed.

4. Here, others can put in whatever they desire.

This example is simply to illustrate how an incident, or happening, within a split second
can take precedence over another, and how easy our attention can be redirected.

What is of absolute importance, imho, when it comes to the most likely scenario
jthomas would have been seen in, from a fly-over point of view, is the question of how many seconds elapsed from the moment he saw the fireball until he stopped the car,
put the hand-brakes on and got out to get a better view.

Imho, the plane would have been long gone.

The way people on the other side of the pentagon would have reacted, upon hearing
the explosion and felt the building tremble, is another thing worth imagining.

I think also these people, in unison, would have thought WTF was that! They would
have looked at each other. Some would have reached for the phone. Others would
gather around. Yet others would have run out to the corridors trying to seek
information from nearby offices.
There would have been shock, confusion, bewilderment and so on running through
the staff, and the last thing they would have thought about was looking out for a
plane!
If anyone had run to the windows, they would have looked down, not up, seen nothing
and returned to join the others for more info about the situation, and whether they needed to evacuate or not, ect. ect..

And don't forget Rumsfeld. He couldn't get down to the lawn quick enough!

As you can see, the reason only very few would have been able to see the fly-over,
is rather easy to explain - at least as far as I'm concerned.

There is nothing at ALL that makes a north side fly-over require a fly-off, except the uncorroborated account of Roosevelt.

Witness statements are being used selectively to create a narrative that the facts do not support.

Is there a witness that states they saw the aircraft strike the Pentagon?

Not that I've been made aware of.

Is there a witness that states they saw a fly-off? One, but completely unsupported by 2ndary testimony or physical evidence... nothing from video tapes to radar tracks to folks on the 395. Nothing.

You may NOT assume that because they did not see the impact that it must mean there is a fly off. That is bad logic. It means there is an obstruction (well proven) between any vantage point of witnesses to the impact.

Let me pose a different argument with the exact same logic: Sgt. Lagasse did not mention seeing Mr. Turcios standing RIGHT IN HIS LINE OF SIGHT. Does that mean Mr. Turcios is lying or possibly that Sgt Lagasse isn't quite the unimpeachable eye witness that we are lead to believe?

Deny ignorance.

Originally posted by cogburn
Is there a witness that states they saw the aircraft strike the Pentagon?

Not that I've been made aware of.

You are not aware of any witnesses claiming they saw the aircraft hit the Pentagon? I don't know what to say!

Firstly, the majority if not all of CITs witnesses who were in a position to see it hit, claimed it hit. Secondly there were a number of people on the Pentagon lawn / on the roads close to or in front of the Pentagon who claimed it hit. In fact the number of people on record claiming it hit is over 100. Please see Gravy's site for more information:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by cogburn
Is there a witness that states they saw the aircraft strike the Pentagon?

Not that I've been made aware of.

You are not aware of any witnesses claiming they saw the aircraft hit the Pentagon? I don't know what to say!

Firstly, the majority if not all of CITs witnesses who were in a position to see it hit, claimed it hit. Secondly there were a number of people on the Pentagon lawn / on the roads close to or in front of the Pentagon who claimed it hit. In fact the number of people on record claiming it hit is over 100. Please see Gravy's site for more information:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Dude, that is totally fair. I was absolutely speaking from a position of ignorance. The work I've done into the statements was purely for a specific purpose, which I will be the first to admit was not to create an all encompassing theory of the Pentagon attacks.

Trucio did not see it hit and says specifically that he did not see an impact. I'm also unsure how you say that all CIT interviews indicate an impact. If so, how does CIT claim a fly-off?

Thanks for bringing me back down a notch.

Originally posted by cogburn
Dude, that is totally fair. I was absolutely speaking from a position of ignorance. The work I've done into the statements was purely for a specific purpose, which I will be the first to admit was not to create an all encompassing theory of the Pentagon attacks.

That is refreshing to hear

Trucio did not see it hit and says specifically that he did not see an impact. I'm also unsure how you say that all CIT interviews indicate an impact.

I haven't reviewed the specific accounts in a while so I can't comment on Mr Turcios' account, I'm sure he doesn't claim that it flew over though. People such as Sgt Lagasse / Sgt Brooks certainly did believe it had impacted the Pentagon, they sent emails and made statements detailing this way before they were interviewed with CIT.

If so, how does CIT claim a fly-off?

Thanks for bringing me back down a notch.

It's complex, but it relies entirely on the north side claim. It's something like this (my interpretation of their theory)

1. Numerous witnesses claim to have seen the plane passing north of the Citgo gas station.
2. Because this would mean an irreconcilable difference with the "official" flight path
3. The plane could not have impacted the building, therefore
4. Any accounts of the plane impacting the building must be due to deception

This is of course a form of circular reasoning, no evidence is provided that there was anything suspicious about the impact to the Pentagon or the debris, DNA and personal effects recovered. It is a handy way of ignoring large parts of the eyewitness accounts, even when such parts are stronger and better corroborated than the accounts in point #1.

Originally posted by djeminy

This example is simply to illustrate how an incident, or happening, within a split second can take precedence over another, and how easy our attention can be redirected.

I will ask you to think more carefully and deal with more realistic scenarios.

What facts we do have are clear:

1. The freeways around the Pentagon and the bridges nearby were congested, full of morning traffic, at a standstill in some spots.

2. Many drivers had unobstructed and different views of the Pentagon from many different locations.

3. NO one can claim to know what those drivers did or did not see.

4. ANY jet flying fast and low over the Pentagon as claimed and required by CIT's "theory" would be visible to a large number of people, particularly those people face on to the jet's flight path away from the Pentagon. There is no way anyone can claim they would not see or hear the event.

5. The jet would have appeared as very large. It would be making a lot of noise.

6. Neither the government nor anyone else would have had any ability to restrict or prevent anyone from seeing or reporting that jet flying away from the Pentagon as an explosion was taking place on one face of it. NO one can say how many people could or would have seen the event.

Now, let's look at what CIT is telling you.

Just imagine it was you stuck in traffic on one of the bridges in the direction of the Pentagon and you see the explosion and this "flyover" jet flying away towards you. You KNOW that the flight characteristics of this jet are completely out of characteristic for any departing or arriving jet at Reagan in direction, altitude, and speed.

Not only do you witness it but so do those stuck ahead of you and behind you. What would you do?

Say you call 9/11 and report what you saw. So do others from the bridge and freeways around the Pentagon. You might get out of your car and compare notes with others who witnessed the event or you might not.

You may have been listening to the news and have known about the New York attacks or you may not know. You may or may not associate the twin-engine jet with the explosion. Did it drop a bomb or shoot a missile? The jet flew right over you and you couldn't see any markings. Was it a military jet, perhaps? But other people saw the event from the side on the freeways and they could see the markings easily? But CIT claims it was a so-called "decoy" jet painted solid white.

So you have an unknown number of people in perfect position to have witnessed the event of a jet doing what any jet has done before flying low, fast, and away from an explosion at the Pentagon. Nobody knows what in hell is going on.

But you, being of sound mind, want to find out what happened, and turn on the news. All day long, you hear no reports of any jet flying away from the Pentagon. You turn on the TV, switch channels -- all networks are covering 9/11 -- and they are all reporting that a missing American Airlines Boeing 757, flight AA77, had been hijacked and was seen heading toward and crashing into the Pentagon.

Amazingly, there is not one single report describing what you witnessed and reported and what you know others witnessed too. How could the media not report this extraordinary event?

Days go by and still nothing. You are flabbergasted. There is something wrong. There are no reports anywhere of any jet flying away from the Pentagon! Is there some conspiracy going on here?

What do you do? You know exactly what to do. First, you start calling the media, all the TV and radio, and newspaper stations. Each says that they have lots of similar calls to yours from other people who said they were on the freeways and they all described the same thing. But none have been able to confirm it with the government who says that there were no other jets in the area, none on radar, none missing. Days go by and the media doesn't even report the many phone calls they have gotten from witnesses like you? Is someone gagging all the media outlets? Not one of them can score a coup being the first to report the flyover you and others witnessed?

What do you do now? You are convinced the government has pulled off something of major proportions and may be involved. You become a 9/11 Truther determined to get to the root of it all.

So, as a new Truther what is your first act?

Knowing that there were others who saw the event, do you attempt to find them and see what they are saying and thinking?

Do you go on the Internet and check out the Usenet newsgroups for any reports of what you witnessed?

Do you start a website to tell what you saw and ask others who were there to tell their stories?

Do you write letters to the editor of newspapers? What other ways can you think of to get the word out of what you witnessed?

Do you report on Usenet or a website that media outlets KNOW there are many eyewitness reports but are silent?

In other words, do you think anyone or anything could have prevented you from getting the word out of what you and others witnessed that day?

Are you really prepared to believe the notion that there would be NO eyewitnesses to a flyover if one had occurred the morning of 9/11?

How is it possible that after seven years there were never any websites reporting a flyover? Never any posts on Usenet with hundreds of thousands of posts on 9/11? Never any leaks or rumors? Not one single report anywhere of anyone witnessing a flyover of any type as CIT claims and is essential and required by their so-called theory?

If you, like me, think there are numerous ways to report what was witnessed, then why would anyone let CIT convince them that no eyewitnesses to a flyover would be able to get the word out? And why would anyone let CIT convince them or you that CIT can speak for what eyewitnesses saw or did not see from the roads, freeways, bridges, businesses, parks, parking lots, etc all around the Pentagon?

So when you think about it even casually you can understand why CIT's "theory" is irrational and makes absolutely no sense, . And CIT knows it.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by djeminy

This example is simply to illustrate how an incident, or happening, within a split second can take precedence over another, and how easy our attention can be redirected.

I will ask you to think more carefully and deal with more realistic scenarios.

So I take it, you don't really agree with my above statement then!!

Well, that's a shame, because this goes basically to the essence and fundamentals
of this whole debacle.

What you ignore, or what you fail to take into consideration, is actually the most
important aspect of this disagreement.

To see a low flying plane near an airport is no cause for alarm. It is seen all the time.
To see a plane that flies lower than usual will certainly draw attention, worry, surprise,
puzzlement an so forth, and not much more than that.

But to suddenly witness a huge fireball followed immediately by a mighty explosion, will
not only cause a sensation of SHOCK AND AWE, but most importantly, in this case, it
will also cause an IMPRINT to the eyes, caused exclusively by the said shock and awe.

It is this IMPRINT that is so crucial to the understanding of the true situation.

(As an example, it was this same kind of IMPRINT that saved the life of good old
James stewart in the movie "Rear window", I think it was called.
Bad Raymond Burr got blinded by the flash from James' camera, which lingered on for
several seconds on the retina long enough for James, thereby, to avoid a very bad
ending).

People saw the fireball/explosion. In chock they closed their eyes from the intense
flare. When they again opened their eyes a second later, the IMPRINT from the
explosion was still present on the retina, lasting a few seconds more - exactly as
Raymond Burr would have experienced it!

Look at the sun for a split second, or look at a flashlight. Close your eyes. The IMPRINT
from the light is still "seen". Open your eyes again, and the light is still there, lasting
a bit longer until it slowly dissolves.

This is the absolute critical moment you pseudo-sceptics choose to constantly ignore.

If you had taken this fact into account, you would easily be able to work out why none
of the witnesses to the fireball DIDN'T "see" a plane fly away.

People away from the fireball who only heard the explosion, would instinctively and
automatically turn their attention to the direction from where the sound came from.

The furthest thing on their mind would be to look up in the sky, searching for a low
flying airplane they already would have been used to see on a daily basis.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by djeminy]


Mod edit: Removed a ridiculous amount of carriage returns that made the post too long.

[edit on 11/21/2008 by Hal9000]

Originally posted by djeminy

So I take it, you don't really agree with my above statement then!!

I did in fact address it. Why did you ignore it?

Well, that's a shame, because this goes basically to the essence and fundamentals of this whole debacle.

What you ignore, or what you fail to take into consideration, is actually the mostimportant aspect of this disagreement.

To see a low flying plane near an airport is no cause for alarm. It is seen all the time. To see a plane that flies lower than usual will certainly draw attention, worry, surprise, puzzlement an so forth, and not much more than that.

I addressed that. First, as a matter of factual evidence, NO commercial or military flight ever flies a hundred feet over the Pentagon going close to 500mph in the direction required by CIT's claims. You only demonstrate that you are have no knowledge of approach and departure procedures at any airport, much less Reagan.

Second, and the most important flaw in your entire argument, you have absolutely no ability to project on other people how they think and how they react.

But to suddenly witness a huge fireball followed immediately by a mighty explosion, will not only cause a sensation of SHOCK AND AWE, but most importantly, in this case, it will also cause an IMPRINT to the eyes, caused exclusively by the said shock and awe.

Again, you have no ability to project on others what they think or saw, and make claims that they all would be blinded by a fireball when many would not even be facing in the direction of the fireball. Did it make them deaf, too?

It is this IMPRINT that is so crucial to the understanding of the true situation.

No it isn't. You cannot make any such claim of what anyone would experience. You are simply projecting on others without a stitch of evidence. You're just thinking of ways to explain away the fact that there are no eyewitnesses to a flyover. Those eyewitnesses could be anywhere around Washington, DC, as I demonstrated quite clearly earlier.

It's too bad that you cannot even address my post. It's a good example of the extent 9/11 Truthers have to go to to protect their "theories."



[edit on 21-11-2008 by jthomas]

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by djeminy

So I take it, you don't really agree with my above statement then!!

I did in fact address it. Why did you ignore it?

You didn't really! I didn't really!

Well, that's a shame, because this goes basically to the essence and fundamentals of this whole debacle.

What you ignore, or what you fail to take into consideration, is actually the mostimportant aspect of this disagreement.

To see a low flying plane near an airport is no cause for alarm. It is seen all the time. To see a plane that flies lower than usual will certainly draw attention, worry, surprise, puzzlement an so forth, and not much more than that.

I addressed that. First, as a matter of factual evidence, NO commercial or military flight ever flies a hundred feet over the Pentagon going close to 500mph in the direction required by CIT's claims. You only demonstrate that you are have no knowledge of approach and departure procedures at any airport, much less Reagan.

I have never heard CIT making any particular claims about anything! As far as I know,
all they do is presenting factual evidence!

Not quite true as I have often arrived at an airport, and equally also departed from an
airport, so know very well what is going on and what's required!

Second, and the most important flaw in your entire argument, you have absolutely no ability to project on other people how they think and how they react.

Not true! My ability is second to none.

But to suddenly witness a huge fireball followed immediately by a mighty explosion, will not only cause a sensation of SHOCK AND AWE, but most importantly, in this case, it will also cause an IMPRINT to the eyes, caused exclusively by the said shock and awe.

Again, you have no ability to project on others what they think or saw, and make claims that they all would be blinded by a fireball when many would not even be facing in the direction of the fireball. Did it make them deaf, too?

Never claimed the witnesses got blinded by the fireball. It was only Raymond Burr that
got blinded!

You'll have to ask them yourselves. I'm far too far away meself to ever get the change!

It is this IMPRINT that is so crucial to the understanding of the true situation.

No it isn't. You cannot make any such claim of what anyone would experience. You are simply projecting on others without a stitch of evidence. You're just thinking of ways to explain away the fact that there are no eyewitnesses to a flyover. Those eyewitnesses could be anywhere around Washington, DC, as I demonstrated quite clearly earlier.

Yes it is!

Yes I can!

No I'm not!

Yes they could!

It's too bad that you cannot even address my post. It's a good example of the extent 9/11 Truthers have to go to to protect their "theories."

Of course I addressed your post!

I addressed it by showing you a totally absolutely opposite contrary way of looking at
the whole picture, thereby saving a lot of time not having to comment to all your
numbered points and others, which, obviously, I strongly disagree with anyway - and
will continue to do.


Mod edit: Fixed quote

[edit on 11/21/2008 by Hal9000]

Originally posted by djeminy

I have never heard CIT making any particular claims about anything! As far as I know, all they do is presenting factual evidence!

Their "theory" requires a high-speed, low-altitude, flyover. That is the consequence and implication of everything they have posted and in all of their videos.

And do you know why you don't hear them saying a jet flew over and away from the Pentagon? You should. Why do you think they concentrate on their NoC flight path, even though all of those 13 eyewitnesses either saw the jet hit the Pentagon, or believe it did, and NONE witnessed a jet flying over and away the Pentagon?

Did it ever occur to you that CIT wants everybody to infer that a flyover took place without ever having to take the responsibility to demonstrate a flyover with positive, verifiable evidence?

Why do you think that CIT evades providing that evidence?

Three days have gone by without a single eyewitness report of any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon.

Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and Rob Balsamo are on record as having no eyewitnesses to a flyover and no one else has provided any eyewitnesses either, as revealed in the latest animation by Pilots for 9/11 Truth:

Google Video Link

Anyone out there have any evidence?