Why does CIT have NO eyewitnesses to a flyover?

Spam noted.

Craig refuses to tell anyone here what Roosevelt Roberts said he saw in his account of Nov. 30, 2001 and his account in the interview CIT did.

Is anyone surprised?

OK

Just for the record we have all seen the images, no need to continually repost them.

Consider this friendly advice.

Semper

People didn't see a flyover because the plane made a regularly scheduled landing at National. lol.

Seriously, I know that the OP has mandated that responses to this thread be examples of witnesses to a flyover, but I choose to answer the question posed by the title of the thread which is quite different.

I think nobody saw the flyover because everybody was watching TV news of what was going on in New York that day. Even if they saw a flyover, it would, as Craig has said, been just another example of a plane flying low in the vicinity of Reagan National. Big deal.

The few people placed close enough to realize what had happened were either watching TV or ATCs at Reagan who may very well have realized that strange things were happening that day and who remembered when they were all fired by Ronald Reagan back in the eighties and knew enough to keep their traps shut about strange government doings.

My two cents worth.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

I think nobody saw the flyover because everybody was watching TV news of what was going on in New York that day. Even if they saw a flyover, it would, as Craig has said, been just another example of a plane flying low in the vicinity of Reagan National. Big deal.

So all those people on the roads, freeways, and bridges were either watching TV in their cars or you know for a fact that that none of them would have ever confused a jet flying lower, and faster, and in a different direction than any plane ever flew in any Reagan departure or arrival pattern.

Gotcha.

Originally posted by jthomas
So all those people on the roads, freeways, and bridges were either watching TV in their cars or you know for a fact that that none of them would have ever confused a jet flying lower, and faster, and in a different direction than any plane ever flew in any Reagan departure or arrival pattern.
Gotcha.

Have you ever stopped to consider that a lot of those drivers on the roads may have been actually doing what you are supposed to be doing while driving, that is, watching the road and the other traffic?

Some of them may have been on cell phones. What do you have to say to that?

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by jthomas
So all those people on the roads, freeways, and bridges were either watching TV in their cars or you know for a fact that that none of them would have ever confused a jet flying lower, and faster, and in a different direction than any plane ever flew in any Reagan departure or arrival pattern.
Gotcha.

Have you ever stopped to consider that a lot of those drivers on the roads may have been actually doing what you are supposed to be doing while driving, that is, watching the road and the other traffic?

Some of them may have been on cell phones. What do you have to say to that?

Several things.

Have you ever driven a car before? Do you understand that as a driver your responsibility is to keep your eyes on your environment? No? Did you ever consider that if you were on 395 approaching the Pentagon on one of the bridges that the jet CIT claims flew over would be coming more or less right at you, low and LOUD? Do you understand that drivers around the Pentagon who had the Pentagon in their line of vision were the most likely to witness such an event?

Do you understand that people on cell phones in their cars are not looking at their cells phone?

Do you understand that neither you nor anyone else has the magical power to claim what an unknown number of people in a position to see a jet fly over the Pentagon would or would not see and you cannot guarantee that NO ONE would see the jet?

No, 9/11 Truthers have to speculate unrealistic scenarios to explain away the obvious: that there is NO evidence that any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon as CIT claims.



[edit on 27-11-2008 by jthomas]

reply to post by jthomas


Maybe some of them were watching traffic (unexpected lane changes can occur and yes I don't drive but that doesn't mean I can't think), talking on their cell phones and listening to the radio, where the news about New York was undoubtedly on the air. That means they had their minds on three things already. Then along comes the plane, (they wouldn't have noticed the missile zipping between the downed lightpoles).

Yes, even though they were busy doing three things at once already, they would have seen the plane heading for the Pentagon. Then boom! Fire and smoke. Do you think they would have stopped everything else to scan the horizon for a departing plane when their eyes were rivetted on the smoke and fire at the building? No way. Information overload!

They would have had a moment of doubt. They would have shaken their heads. They would have remembered that they were driving!!!! They would have looked around at the other traffic to see if anyone was going to bump into them. They would have been trying to tell their telephone friend what had just happened. They would have looked back at the smoke.

They wouldn't have seen the plane leaving. Except for one person.

The kid in the back seat. The kid would have said,

"Hey! Mom/Dad! The plane flew away!

"What?"

"I saw the plane fly away!"

"Honey, look at the smoke. The plane didn't fly away. It flew into the building. That's the Pentagon!"

"No. I saw it fly away!"

"What did you see?"

"I saw the plane. It just kept going. It flew over the roof. That way!"

"Sweety, don't be silly. Reagan National is over there. That was just another plane, landing at the airport."

(Face all screwed up.) "No the plane flew over the building. I saw it."

"Yes dear."




[edit on 27-11-2008 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by jthomas
Do you understand that neither you nor anyone else has the magical power to claim what an unknown number of people in a position to see a jet fly over the Pentagon would or would not see and you cannot guarantee that NO ONE would see the jet?

I've resisted posting in this thread until now.

Your paragraph here, jthomas, is enough to shoot down your own argument. I'm glad that you typed it.

You admit that you don't know how many people were in a position to see a possible flyover, as you don't have that 'magical power'. Perhaps there were no people in a position to see a flyover, you admit it's possible in your paragraph ('unknown number of people').

You admit that you don't know what those people would or would not see, as you don't have that 'magical power'.

Therefore, you can't guarantee that a possible flyover was not witnessed, as you don't have that 'magical power'. Perhaps some people did see a flyover and confused it with a landing approach - you don't know that, as you don't have that 'magical power'. Perhaps some people did see a flyover and are keeping silent about it - you don't know that, as you don't have that 'magical power'.

That's enough from me in this thread, it's the only 5 points that I'm giving you. You can try and back out of your paragraph, as I'm sure that you will and you can have the last word. You're not sucking me in with another reply though, I try not to feed trolls, which is why I go hungry sometimes. You've admitted that no one knows what people might or might not have seen that day, so any possible flyover can still be open to conjecture. Absence of flyover witnesses is not evidence of a flyover absence.

You really need to learn how to argue logically and realise the implications of what you type before you type it.

Edit to fix bold tags.

[edit on 27-11-2008 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
Do you understand that neither you nor anyone else has the magical power to claim what an unknown number of people in a position to see a jet fly over the Pentagon would or would not see and you cannot guarantee that NO ONE would see the jet?

I've resisted posting in this thread until now.

Your paragraph here, jthomas, is enough to shoot down your own argument. I'm glad that you typed it.

You admit that you don't know how many people were in a position to see a possible flyover, as you don't have that 'magical power'. Perhaps there were no people in a position to see a flyover, you admit it's possible in your paragraph ('unknown number of people').

First, thanks for admitting in your last post that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Indeed, that is the whole point rendering any discussion of an imaginary flyover plane, moot. Of course, we have plenty of eyewitnesses who saw AA77 actually hit the Pentagon, which I seem to have to constantly remind 9/11 Truthers provided independent testimony consistent with all if the other evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon that you Truthers have never refuted in all these seven years.

Imagine that.

Secondly, I have already addressed that we are talking about probabilities and I long ago provided the foundation for the probability that NO ONE witnessed a plane flying low and fast over and away from the Pentagon approaches ZERO.

Of course, we have CIT that knows it can convince naive truthers that 13 eyewitnesses claimed to have seen the "mystery" jet moving fast and low over them going toward the Pentagon and their statements are unimpeachable which, magically means the jet flew over and away from the Pentagon.

Despite the fact that those eyewitnesses all saw or believe the jet HIT the Pentagon. Imagine that?

And one supposed "verified" eyewitness account, from Roosevelt Roberts who gave two different accounts, each contradicting the other, and leaving CIT scratching their heads about what he really meant.

No matter! CIT says so, you'll believe them! And that's why CIT can peddle the most absurd irrational nonsense day after day.

Why don't you Truthers just flat out admit that there is absolutely NO evidence that any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon? You can't go on making up impossible scenarios to explain away what doesn't fit your desired conclusion. Quit dodging, tezzajw, and take a course in logic and critical thinking.


[edit on 27-11-2008 by jthomas]

One important thing to keep in mind is that on an ordinary day in America, if you see an airliner flying too low toward a building and when it reaches the building there is a big explosion with fire and smoke, there is only one logical inference that can be drawn from that presentation.

In the ordinary world of every day America, the plane has obviously crashed into the building. What else could have happened? Nothing.

Except 9/11 wasn't an ordinary day in America. Impossible things happened on that day, were made to happen.

CIT looked into the Pentagon incident and found that things were not as they seemed and that other logical inferences were possible besides the obvious inference.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

CIT looked into the Pentagon incident and found that things were not as they seemed and that other logical inferences were possible besides the obvious inference.

And you're gullible enough to fall for CIT's fairy tale.

Day 12

Can you imagine? Day 12 and no one has yet produced positive, verified eyewitness, media, or physical evidence that ANY jet flew over and away from the Pentagon.

CIT is still trying to get around the fact that Roosevelt Roberts did not witness any flyover.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth remains completely flummoxed as their flyover scenario was completely blasted out of the water.

posted by jthomas
Do you understand that neither you nor anyone else has the magical power to claim what an unknown number of people in a position to see a jet fly over the Pentagon would or would not see and you cannot guarantee that NO ONE would see the jet?

posted by tezzajw
I've resisted posting in this thread until now.

Your paragraph here, jthomas, is enough to shoot down your own argument. I'm glad that you typed it.

You admit that you don't know how many people were in a position to see a possible flyover, as you don't have that 'magical power'. Perhaps there were no people in a position to see a flyover, you admit it's possible in your paragraph ('unknown number of people').

posted by jthomas
First, thanks for admitting in your last post that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

tezzajw admitted no such thing. You just made that up entirely, like you always do. Not feeding the trolls is a good policy. An honest open debate is much more desirable than deliberate distortions and misquotes and disinformation.

Originally posted by SPreston
An honest open debate is much more desirable than deliberate distortions and misquotes and disinformation.

Your hypocrisy is amazing, SPreston, you who has never believed in any honest debate about anything to do with 9/11.

The fact remains that tezz and you and others have been shown that you have not presented any evidence to support your claims that ANY jet flew over and away from the Pentagon and you invent every excuse imaginable to avoid admitting it.

Either present the verifiable eyewitness evidence that any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon or admit that you cannot demonstrate it.

And you and tezz can admit that NONE of CIT eyewitnesses, including Roosevelt Roberts, saw any jet flyover the Pentagon and ALL of them either saw a jet hit the Pentagon or believed it did.

Let's see if you have the intellectual honesty to admit that you have no verifiable eyewitnesses to any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon.

Originally posted by jthomas
Day 12

Can you imagine? Day 12 and no one has yet produced positive, verified eyewitness, media, or physical evidence that ANY jet flew over and away from the Pentagon.

CIT is still trying to get around the fact that Roosevelt Roberts did not witness any flyover.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth remains completely flummoxed as their flyover scenario was completely blasted out of the water.

Day 12

Previous evidence submitted has been completely ignored by thread author as he forges ahead pushing blatant lies regarding what has been presented while continuing his clear campaign to antagonize and disrupt as a strategy to obliterate the possibility of civil honest discussion.

His inability to have an actual communicative exchange regarding the evidence is continually demonstrated as he steamrolls his agenda to make completely false declarations like a robot in desperate hope that his propaganda efforts actually affect a reader or two on this board.

He has failed to quote the first critical flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts Jr. or bothered to even try to make a case why he refuses to accept this account while simply choosing to make hollow sweeping generalized statements of denial.

Can you imagine?

Not to mention he also completely ignores the fact that we provide 13 witnesses who unanimously and independently place the plane on the north side of the gas station which scientifically proves a flyover....

Listen to both accounts of the first critical flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts Jr. in full during Part 2 of the North Side Flyover at 41:50.

But beyond that we have provided exclusive interviews with previously published suspect witnesses who report an alleged "2nd plane" as flying away from the Pentagon IMMEDIATELY after the explosion!

Clearly they ARE talking about a plane flying away and they aren't the only ones yet the author continues to ignore the ramifications of this evidence that directly contradicts the question asked in the title of his thread.

If there really was a "2nd plane" in the airspace at the same time as the attack or shadowing "AA7", why didn't everyone see it? If not then why did these witnesses say there was one?

I'll tell you since the thread author refuses to acknowledge this evidence...because it serves as perfect cover for the flyover.

It simply wasn't a "2nd" plane because there were not 2 planes and the one plane that existed was on the north side of the citgo proving it didn't hit the building.

Please watch video presentation including exclusive interviews with these dubious alleged 2nd plane witnesses in our 37 minute presentation, The 2nd Plane Cover Story.


[edit on 30-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by jthomas
Day 12

Can you imagine? Day 12 and no one has yet produced positive, verified eyewitness, media, or physical evidence that ANY jet flew over and away from the Pentagon.

CIT is still trying to get around the fact that Roosevelt Roberts did not witness any flyover.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth remains completely flummoxed as their flyover scenario was completely blasted out of the water.


Day 12

Previous evidence submitted has been completely ignored by thread author as he forges ahead pushing blatant lies regarding what has been presented while continuing his clear campaign to antagonize and disrupt as a strategy to obliterate the possibility of civil honest discussion.

Trolling noted.

He has failed to quote the first critical flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts Jr. or bothered to even try to make a case why he refuses to accept this account while simply choosing to make hollow sweeping generalized statements of denial.

Roosevelt Roberts's testimony is clear:

Then my seargent, Seargent Woolwich, Woody, he called and he said, hey, rob, listen, we gonna threatcon delta. As I hang up the phone, the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the tv, it was like, it was almost timed for preciseness. So, as I hung up the phone, and I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot, it's about like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning. And then there was dust and stuff coming from the ceiling, you could hear people screaming. So, what I did was, I turned around and drew out my weapon, and I didn't know what was going on. I thoughts we was being invaded, I didn't know what was happening. So I ran back into South Loading and I start forcing people out of the building.

memory.loc.gov.../afc911bib:@field(DOCID+@lit(afc911000155))

So Roberts was watching the TV and the events in New York. Seargent Woolwich called him to warn him that The Pentagon may be a target too. As he hangs up the phone he sees the video of UA175 hitting WTC 2 in NYC. Obviously concerned that the Pentagon may be hit too, he then runs out to the South Loading Dock around 9:11 or 9:12 am, looks around and sees a jet "flying around the South Parking Lot."

At 9:11 or 9:12 it could be any jet out there. Clearly the timing is off.

Only AFTER he runs out and sees the jet, does Roberts say ANYTHING happening inside the Pentagon. Obviously, the crash and CIT's claimed "flyover" took place around 30 minutes AFTER he sees "a plane flying around the South Parking Lot.

So, by his own account, your claims, and your timeline, Roosevelt Roberts is not can cannot be a flyover eyewitness.

Not to mention he also completely ignores the fact that we provide 13 witnesses who unanimously and independently place the plane on the north side of the gas station which scientifically proves a flyover....

Already refuted. Craig's trolling noted again.





[edit on 30-11-2008 by jthomas]

[edit on 30-11-2008 by jthomas]

reply to post by jthomas


Sorry but Roosevelt does NOT claim he was reacting to the plane hitting the WTC on the TV while he was at the Pentagon!

You completely made this up as it's 100% clear that when he says "the plane hit the building" he is referring to the Pentagon.

We know this for a fact because he mentions "dust and stuff" (obviously NOT on the TV) and elaborates about starting to help people out of the building (again obviously not on TV). Listen to what he says and actually pay attention to the very words you are quoting:

So, as I hung up the phone, and I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot, it's about like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning. And then there was dust and stuff coming from the ceiling, you could hear people screaming.

So he was simply wrong about the time which is a normal mistake, because obviously he wasn't describing a 30 minute gap here!

Roosevelt's timeline as confirmed direct when we talked to him....

Watching TV....
gets call on phone...
hangs up the phone.... timed with BOOM! (he believes plane hits building)

We confirmed with him direct that he immediately reacted to the BOOM inside the Pentagon (not on TV) and was immediately outside "seven steps" later watching the plane with jet engines at less than 100 feet flying away from the building!

There is nothing up for question here.

THIS is what he told us in 2008 and the library of congress in 2001 and I am certain any honest person who bothers to listen to the interviews will understand this just fine.

Stop living in denial jthomas.

Roosevelt Roberts Jr. is CLEARLY the first critical flyover witness proving all 13 independently corroborated north side approach witnesses correct.





[edit on 30-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by jthomas

 

Sorry but Roosevelt does NOT claim he was reacting to the plane hitting the WTC on the TV while he was at the Pentagon!

Pay attention, Craig. Roberts said he was watching TV when he got a call from Woolwich. When he hung up, he ran outside to the South Loading Dock, and "saw another plane flying around the south parking lot, it's about like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning." Got that?

THEN -- got that, "then" -- "there was dust and stuff coming from the ceiling, you could hear people screaming."

So it's obvious that Robert's did not run out to the South Loading Dock in reaction to any explosion. He ran back into the Pentagon after the explosion and after Roberts " saw another plane flying around the south parking lot, it's about like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning."

You completely made this up as it's 100% clear that he says "the plane hit the building" he is referring to the Pentagon.

At 9:11 in the morning, the only "plane hitting the building" was the video of UA175 hitting WTC 2, just when they were being shown over and over on the TV he was watching.

We know this for a fact because he mentions "dust and stuff" (obviously NOT on the TV) and elaborates about starting to help people out of the building. Listen to what he says and pay attention to the words you are quoting

See above. He saw the plane at "9:12, 9:11", and then only after seeing the plane did the people start screaming and dust start falling. So it's clear at that time in the morning, AA77 had not yet hit the Pentagon, your imagined "flyover" plane hadn't appeared, and Roberts only ran back into the Pentagon after the explosion.

So, Craig, you are not even representing Robert's account accurately.

So he was simply wrong about the time which is a normal mistake, because obviously he wasn't describing a 30 minute gap here!

Oh, he was wrong about something, Craig?

Roosevelt's timeline....

Watching TV....
gets call on phone...
hangs up the phone.... and timed with BOOM!

We confirm with him direct that he immediately reacted to the BOOM inside the Pentagon (not on TV) and was outside seven steps later watching the plane with jet engines at less than 100 feet flying away from the building.

So, your key eyewitness contradicted his first account? How curious. Some eyewitness, Roberts is, eh?

THIS is what he told us and the library of congress and I am certain any honest person who bothers to listen to the interviews will understand this.

You're quite wrong. In his account to LIC, on November 30, 2001, in which he spoke without being questioned or interrupted, he clearly states he saw a plane flying around the South Parking lot at "9:12, 9:11", and then -- and ONLY then -- did ANYTHING happen inside the Pentagon. He ran inside in reaction to the explosion, not outside. He saw the plane 30 odd minutes before anything happened at the Pentagon.

Then we have CIT's interview in which YOU admit that you can't even reconcile his account then with what you want to have happened. You left the interview with CIT wanting to clarify what in hell he meant from a plane flying from the southwest, circling, and flying BACK to the Southwest.

So let' susm up to show why CIT is bankrupt.

1. Roosevelt Roberts, in his first account 2 1/2 months after 9/11, talks freely about his recollection of that day.

2. Roberts's account does not, as Craig Ranke claims, say he ran outside to the South Loading Dock in reaction to the explosion, THEN to see an airplane, but just the opposite: Robert's went out at 9:11 or 9:12 after a warning call that the Pentagon may be attacked, saw a plane, and "then there was dust and stuff coming from the ceiling, you could hear people screaming."

3. CIT misrepresents Roosevelt Roberts's first account and claims that Robert's must be "mistaken" about the time.

4. CIT's interview with Roberts years later produces not only a different account of that day, but one in which CIT is left confused about what Roberts is actually saying.

5. An additional interview that CIT wants (and needs) with Robert's never happens because Roberts backed out.

6. Nonetheless, CIT claims that Roberts two differing accounts magically PROVES a jet flew over and away from the Pentagon when CIT wants it to.

This is a "professional" investigation by an impartial, neutral investigative team?

CIT wants us all to believe that its only so-called "flyover" eyewitness is credible with differing and confused accounts and absolutely NO corroborating eyewitnesses?

Yes, CIT thinks everyone is SO gullible that it can spew propaganda with impunity.

But there is more reason not to accept Roosevelt Roberts as a credible eyewitness to any supposed "flyover." Because in his account of speaking on the phone with Seargeant Woolwich just before "9:11, 9:12" in the morning, Roberts says that Woolwich alerted him that the Pentagon was going on "Threatcon Delta." The only problem is that it didn't happen that way.

"Pentagon Defense Protective Service (DPS) Chief John Jester "directed (Deputy Chief John) Pugrud to notify DPS Communication Center to raise the Force Protection Condition to Alpha, meaning that a general threat of possible terrorist activity existed which required enhanced security.

"Pugrud had the phone in his hand dialing the center when Flight 77 hit. He heard the crash more than felt it. When the phone call was answered, he could hear the center's alarms activating and radio calls taking place. The dispatcher yelled, 'We've been hit! We've been hit!'"

- "Pentagon 9/11", Page 152

Robert's could not have ever gotten that phone call.

So, not only is Roberts not an acceptable eyewitness to a supposed "flyover", CIT has yet to produce any positive, verified eyewitnesses who witnessed any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon in an areas where there would have been scores of eyewitnesses to such an extraordinary event.

CIT knows this but refuses to admit its claims are bankrupt. CIT knows it has a flock of gullible true believers and that its propaganda campaign will keep the believers coming back for more.

The only question is, will you let CIT get away with it?


[edit on 30-11-2008 by jthomas]

reply to post by jthomas


You've lost all touch with reality.

You are wildly spewing a completely unsupported fantasy that you made up without quoting Roosevelt and while ignoring what he already confirmed with us direct.

You are completely ignoring his 2008 interview with us where he specifies that it was "10 seconds tops" or "seven steps" after the explosion at the Pentagon when he saw what he thought was a 2nd jet at LESS than 100 feet above the south parking lot banking away!

He does not describe seeing the plane 30 minutes before the explosion. He says it was seven steps after!

He would not associate this jet with the attack or call it a "2nd jet" at all if he was talking about seeing it a half hour before the attack!



The entire notion that the 2nd jet airliner he describes was 30 minutes BEFORE the explosion at the Pentagon is completely insane and you know it since...

1. This is not what he says.

And:

2. There is no possible explanation for a commercial jet "just above the light poles" coming from the west and banking over the south parking lot at 30 minutes before the attack or ANY TIME anyway!

You are clearly seething as every frantic unsupported word you type oozes desperation.

At least this thread is giving a lot of attention to Roosevelt Roberts' critical account and the only people you can possibly fool with your blatant spin efforts are those who refuse to listen to the interviews, and like you already have a deep-rooted confirmation bias in favor of the what the government told you about 9/11.


[edit on 30-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by jthomas

 

You've lost all touch with reality.

Reality supports me 100%

You are wildly spewing a completely unsupported fantasy that you made up without quoting Roosevelt and while ignoring what he already confirmed with us direct.

It's already clear you picked out what you wanted to hear from a confused, conflicting, and contradictory account. Why deny it, Craig?

You are completely ignoring his 2008 interview with us where he specifies that it was "10 seconds tops" or "seven steps" after the explosion at the Pentagon when he saw what he thought was a 2nd jet at LESS than 100 feet above the south parking lot banking away!

And he said the opposite in the first interview but instead of dismissing him as an unreliable witness as you and Aldo knew he was, you picked out what you wanted to hear.

He does not describe seeing the plane 30 minutes before the explosion. He says it was seven steps after!

Of COURSE, he does, Craig. Are you that desperate to claim he didn't say what he clearly stated in the first interview right in front of everyone here?!

He would not associate this jet with the attack or call it a "2nd jet" at all if he was talking about seeing it a half hour before the attack!

In his first interview, he saw ONLY one jet flying around the Pentagon, at "9:12, 9:11", 30 minutes before the attack. In your interview he sees a jet approach from the southwest, turn around and fly back towards the southwest. Neither are there any eyewitnesses who saw any jet fly back to the southwest, which ALSO contradicts your theory. You KNOW that.

The entire notion that the 2nd jet airliner he describes was 30 minutes BEFORE the explosion at the Pentagon is completely insane and you know it since...

So you're now calling YOUR eyewitness a liar when he clearly says it in the first interview. There's nothing more desperate than that, Craig. You keep digging your hole deeper.

Amazing.

1. This is not what he says.

But he does. Let's repeat once again so people can see how you are avoiding the truth at all costs, Craig:

"So, as I hung up the phone, and I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot, it's about like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning. And then there was dust and stuff coming from the ceiling, you could hear people screaming."

And:

2. There is no possible explanation for a commercial jet "just above the light poles" coming from the west and banking over the south parking lot at 30 minutes before the attack or ANY TIME anyway!

You know full well that in his first interview he ONLY said: "I looked up and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot." The only plane he had seen before that time was on the TV, UA175 hitting WTC 2." Now, you know that he didn't describe any plane doing anything at "9:12, 9:11" in the morning OTHER than "flying around the south parking lot."

At least this thread is giving a lot of attention to Roosevelt Roberts' critical account and the only people you can possibly fool with your blatant spin efforts are those who refuse to listen to the interviews, and like you already have a deep-rooted confirmation bias in favor of the what the government told you about 9/11.

LOL, Craig! What you have accomplished is to now call your *star* witness a liar, tell us his first account could not be true, tell us it doesn't matter that Roberts saw a plane come from the southwest, circle, and fly back to the southwest when you know that is also completely contradictory to your "theory", and then when you can't even interview him again to clarify what he meant, CIT declares Roosevelt Roberts as the unimpeachable, confirmatory eyewitness to a flyover.

Now, Craig Ranke, how stupid do you think your readers are?

It's all over for CIT, Craig. You never could demonstrate any of your claims and have demonstrated that your claims and eyewitnesses are so mixed up, confused, contradictory, and unacceptable, that it can only invoke pity for CIT.

Even your partner, Aldo, knows the hopelessness of CIT's case. And you know you never had a case to begin with.

The ONLY thing left to do is admit it to all those here and fold up CIT's operation. You know that is the ethical thing to do, Craig.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by jthomas]