Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

Originally posted by trebor451
All this is an example of how CIT and PFT ignore...literally and utterly and totally ignore and hand-wave away - significant contradictory and disproving elements to their fanciful and delusional made-up story.

For THAT matter, take ANY of those "NOC" flight paths and reconscile them to where Officer Roberts said he saw the "flyover" aircraft. Plot a course from NOC to lane 1 of South Parking, heading southwest. Can't happen. Impossible for a 757 at 50 to 100 feet, at any speed.

Watching Ranke hand-wave this away in this ATS thread from a few years ago with his typical "Yes, but that applies to everything but us!"..." excuses is really funny...

Originally posted by WetBlanky

 

Huh? I didn't say anything about a "secret government agent". I merely pointed out that he placed the plane NoC and therefore could not have seen an impact. You accept that right?

No I don't because...

a) you're passing off rough estimates as absolute fact. Someone judging something to be 100 yards away when it was really 120 yards away is a simple error in judging distances to the rest of humanity, but you truthers are inflating this into absurdity by being a "smoking gun that proves the 9/11 attack was a secret plot to take over the world". You can't tell me this isn't grasping at straws on your part to advance a given agenda. The guy didn't go around measuring everything with a tape measure jsut to placate you truthers.

b) The guy said he saw the plane descending and he posted photos proving how close he was to the Pentagon during the attack. For you to say all this is false means that you're calling him a liar, these photos are faked, and he's part of an organized effort to delude the public, all based upon nothing but your own abject paranoia. Don't you even bother to think your own accusations through?

A plane hit the Pentagon. Incorporate the fact into your conspiracy stories as you see fit.

I assume you are using a non sequitur as a crutch here?

Nope, I'm using facts to show you truthers are being raped by those damned fool conspiracy web sites you're going to, and badly. Another poster here went to one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites and found falsified photos meant to manufacture false rumors that there was some secret plot to shroud the building with piles of dirt so that noone can see what hit it, and these photos I just posted show right away that it's complete nonsense; the Pentagon was right next to a busy highway and there were hordes of people gawking, so this whole CIT flyover claim is rubbish right out of the gate.

That is the end result of the argument regardless of whatever point it is you're attempting to argue.

Those who "try" to defend the preposterous official 9/11 story are relagated to the intellectual perimeter.

The Don Quixote of our age.

Instead of windmills they attack minor points and small details seldom raising their collective visor to see the big picture.

So what is the big picture?

The big picture is that the US is not just in recession but that the world is moving on without the US and it is becoming a backwater.

The ideology that revolves around "American Exceptionalism" has died a hard death but the official story defenders are still sucking on the cold breast with one face and screaming at the world with the other.

It is not that the official story of 9/11 is a lie - it is that it is all a lie.

Here the Congress can not cut one cent from the military budget when in reality the US has to borrow money from the very people they say are their military adversaries.

Borrowing money from China to station ships off the coast of China!

Are American military uniforms made in China or has that been debunked, too?

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Dave,

If all of what you say about the attack on the Pentagon is true then why did the Bush Administration do everything in itsr power to not have a 9/11 Commission at all?

Or am I asking you to prove a negative in this case?

Let me answer your question with another question- why are you truthers insisting on this mindlessly idiotic claim that a plane secretly flew over the Pentagon, secretly dropped a bomb/missile/crate of kittens/whatever, and everyone is secretly being paid to cover it up? Why can't a plane really have hit the Pentagon AS WELL AS the 9/11 attack was part of some secret plot to take over the world? The two don't cancel each other out.

If the official story of 9/11 is true then why did the Bush Administration select the war criminal Henry Kissinger to head the Commission?

This is a sterling example of a strawman argument in that you know you're LOSING the debate but you have to bring up some side issue to argue about in the hopes you can win the argument by proxy. You're not arguing for or against any conspiracy theory at this point. You're arguing over having to admit you were wrong. You could have just as easily have argued the plane that hit the pentagon was under remote control and piloted by some CIA predator drone pilot, which would have satisfy your need to wallow in abject paranoia AND conform to all the known facts...AND you wouldn't need to resort to calling a single eyewitness a liar to do it. NOPE NOPE NOPE you have to go way, way out into outer space by claiming there was a secret flyover and that there are armies of sinister secret agents planted everywhere pretending to claim they saw a plane hit it. It's absolutely cartoonish.

Admit it dude, noone looked at the events of the day and read the eyewitness reports and instictively came to the conclusion that everyone in the vicinity was some secret agent being paid to lie and the plane really flew over the Pentagon. It was one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites that originally put the idea into your head.

Was the Bush Adminisration claim that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as valid as the official 9/11 story?

I have never concealed my beliefs. The 9/11 attack succeeded because Bush was an idiot. We saw right away how impotent his administration was when he couldn't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane survivors in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels. Even the 9/11 commission report hints at some of the blunders- interceptors were sent off to fly in circles, orders weren't handed down properly, officials crapping out in their responsibilities, and all that, so I absolutely positively know there had to have been more incompetence in the days leading up to, and during, the attack, than what the gov't is admitting. This whole "Whoops, I guess Iraq didn't have WMD after all" stunt of his only confirms my point and only refutes yours.

Just because the gov't is manufacturing details to embellish their side of the story doesn't give you truthers license to do the same.

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Those who "try" to defend the preposterous official 9/11 story are relagated to the intellectual perimeter.

The Don Quixote of our age.

Instead of windmills they attack minor points and small details seldom raising their collective visor to see the big picture.

Making up stupid sounding horse [censored] about how the plane "secretly flew over the Pentagon" and how "every single eyewitness is a secet agent" is hardly a minor point or a small detail. It's an unrepentent attempt to rewrite things to your liking in order to trick people into becoming as unreasonably paranoid as you yourselves are.

It's the internet age's version of screaming FIRE in a crowded theater.

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Those who "try" to defend the preposterous official 9/11 story are relagated to the intellectual perimeter.

The Don Quixote of our age.

Instead of windmills they attack minor points and small details seldom raising their collective visor to see the big picture.

So what is the big picture?

The big picture is that the US is not just in recession but that the world is moving on without the US and it is becoming a backwater.

The ideology that revolves around "American Exceptionalism" has died a hard death but the official story defenders are still sucking on the cold breast with one face and screaming at the world with the other.

It is not that the official story of 9/11 is a lie - it is that it is all a lie.

Here the Congress can not cut one cent from the military budget when in reality the US has to borrow money from the very people they say are their military adversaries.

Borrowing money from China to station ships off the coast of China!

Are American military uniforms made in China or has that been debunked, too?

I'm so happy that you see the big picture and pronounce that "it is all a lie." Note that your diatribe is only peripherally related to 911. You have not defined the "Official Story" [called the "OS" by many who need a conspiracy to feel special] and have not addressed any criticisms of alternate theories that seem to be based on individual feelings. You seem to ask rhetorical questions as part of your ranting and are confused about history. When challenged, you shift the focus once again and pontificate on another topic unrelated to 911. Were you in Viet-Nam during that war or did you just happen on the Maddox incident?
If you want to rant, why don't you just state how you will solve the problems of the world? You can start by initiating a thread to tell everyone what the big picture is, according to you, your take on the problems with the world, and how you would fix them.

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by trebor451
All this is an example of how CIT and PFT ignore...literally and utterly and totally ignore and hand-wave away - significant contradictory and disproving elements to their fanciful and delusional made-up story.

For THAT matter, take ANY of those "NOC" flight paths and reconscile them to where Officer Roberts said he saw the "flyover" aircraft. Plot a course from NOC to lane 1 of South Parking, heading southwest. Can't happen. Impossible for a 757 at 50 to 100 feet, at any speed.

Watching Ranke hand-wave this away in this ATS thread from a few years ago with his typical "Yes, but that applies to everything but us!"..." excuses is really funny...

Oh Trebor, you know Roosevelt was at East Loading Dock (ELD) and can't be referring to the lane you are referring to unless out of deduction. Silly Trebor.

ROBERTS: I was in south parking, and I was at the east loading dock when I ran outside and saw the low-flying aircraft above the parking lot.

No, he was running from the corridor leading from the small office where he watched on TV the events in New York, out to the east side of the South Loading, to its car-lane border with the huge South Parking Lot. Where he could have seen both flight paths. NoC, but of course also SoC.
I am convinced he saw the NoC flight path, just as you at least believe in the NoC path.

And I am also convinced that plane flew into the Pentagon's west wall at about 230 MPH, nearly head-on into the first floor its huge and thick, steel bar reinforced concrete floor slab. And not with a speed of 540 MPH, as the official story wants to convince us of.
And that thick slab stopped most of its mass, and that's why it did not went further in than to the back wall of the first ring, the E-ring.
Then one or no more than a few minutes later Steve Riskus or that other photographer who came running down from the Annex photographed that white hot explosion spitting out of the entry hole in the west wall.
White flash equals high power explosions. Orange or gray black equals solvents explosions.

And that's why its nose parts ended up crumbled at the eastern back-wall of that first E ring.
And NOT at the hole in the C-ring.
And they let that E-ring part collapse at exactly the building's Rings expansion line, so that the rubble covered the remains of that plane and they could remove it later, without any spying eyes allowed in there.

When all was cleaned up, then the non-military researchers were allowed in, in late October, and they came up with the Building Damage Report. Their chief investigator was the same military man who led the investigation in that other town, 6 years earlier. Oklahoma City. What a coincidence, ain't it?

Ligon started this East Loading misconception, and I showed him where he was wrong over at PfT, in my only thread allowed there. So could you show me your link to that text you came up with?

This is from my post #60 in my 7 pages thread at PfT, titled :
""The Pentagon Attack Arguments List : Fly-over, Or Head-on Impact?, Just two options left : NoC fly-over, or NoC 90° impact.""

pilotsfor911truth.org...

March 7, 2011.
Ligon, can you give me the original link address where you found this drawing with your proposed East Loading site in it?
Which spot has two 77 feet high Pentagon walls to its south and west sides, totally blocking its line of sight to Route 27 or the Lane One area of the South Parking, both areas which were numerous times mentioned by Roosevelt Roberts in his last phone interview with Aldo Marquis.

Thus not your own link to your/someone-else zoomed in cut-out from that original full drawing.
I mean the drawing of the Pentagon loading docks with their naming (as on the day of 9/11/2001, and not a 2010 drawing), I asked so explicitly for in the other pages of this thread, so I could form me a better impression of the, possible fly-over, Roosevelt Roberts witness account :

i41.tinypic.com...

You posted it over at the A.T.S. its 9/11 forum on 2/March/11. Five days ago. Not in this thread...yet. Now I did.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I ask this, because it looks to me as an original drawing with straight lettering in it, and then perhaps someone used f.ex. the Paint program, and wrote a lot of extra Italic lettering in it, to point out additional points of interest to the Roosevelt Roberts witness account, so to see.
And the blue overlay with "South Loading" in it, does not cover the full South Loading area.
And to my knowledge, that South Loading dock has a western and a eastern dock part, and people working there addressed it like that, before and on 9/11.

One follow-up post in that A.T.S. thread had this in it :
""Roosevelt : It would've t--, it would've taken about ten seconds, because after impact I stepped out the little, uh, booth that I was in.""
That poster then wrote : ""10 freaking seconds? How slow was that flyover jet going??? ""

Roosevelt however described not the Pentagon impact, but he was in that interview quite busy describing that he saw the second impact in the North Tower in New York on the little television set in the booth he was sitting in. At that time, on 9/11, after seeing the second plane impact, he realized that the Pentagon would be a prime terrorist attack target, took his eyes off the little television set he was following the events in New York on, stood up from his chair and ran (as he said) outside through the little corridor and out on the loading dock. Took him 7 steps he says. To check if there would be something in the air there too, just like as in New York. Not because of some explosion or impact at the Pentagon, YET.
And yes, to his surprise, he then saw an incoming low flying plane in the southwest.

Coming from a southwestern direction, flying NoC in a slight right bank, aiming low at the west wall, and then he lost sight of it because the southern corner of the west wall blocked his view on the impact. But then he understood that an impact had occurred, because dust came flying out and from over the roofs, and people inside started yelling.

That was the, real for him, occurring Pentagon impact he witnessed in real time, and not the time and time again repeated North Tower impact in New York he saw 30 seconds before, on that little TV in that little booth inside the eastern part of the South Loading dock.


If you don't believe me, listen very carefully to Roosevelt's two interviews audio files, the first interview is a government institute one, the other is a phone interview with the CIT team's Aldo Marquis :

1. Roosevelt Roberts interview just after 9/11 with a Library of Congress team, an MP3-audio file.

2. Link to Roosevelt Roberts audio from his second phone interview years later, now the one by CIT's Aldo Marquis.You can find it, beginning at 51:00 minutes into the linked-to Google-video made by CIT.
After Aldo tried several times to get him on his hand-phone, he at last got him on the phone while he was in his car, driving to work.


NOTES on 1.
Ligon, if he really stood on that spot you indicated as "East Loading", there are only a few possibilities left over.
Or you, or your source are mistaken.
Or he is not telling the truth, or mistaken.

Or, he stood in reality where I (and btw, CIT also in that video) always have placed him, on the eastern side of the South Loading Dock platform. And he is telling us the true NoC flight path (RR : "" heading to the Mall Entrance "") of Flight AA 77 he saw coming in a direction towards the west wall.

WHY am I so sure about that?

Because he certainly could not see Route 27, nor the Lane One area from the South Parking, at all from anywhere near that spot you call East Loading and you think he stood on. And he also would have never said then, that the second plane, the C130, was heading to the Mall Entrance, because he could not see it from there too. He also could not see the C130 full flight pattern from there, with all 77 feet high walls blocking a view there on those maneuvers of the C130, coming from the Southwest, turning west, and leaving to the Northwest.

files.abovetopsecret.com...




Roosevelt Roberts clearly told us in his first, fresh after 9/11 interview by the Library of Congress team, that he saw a plane coming in low, and it flew somewhere over the area behind the South Parking its Lane One area, which is the first lane and the one nearest to Route 27 and to the the parking entrance part of Columbia Pike, where the Pike comes out from under the overpass of Route 27 over the Pike.
And additionally he said : "" Then it crossed Route 27.""
Thus, he describes a flight path either SoC or NoC.
All his statements were still also in possible agreement with CIT's NoC witnesses.

This is a zoom-in at your location. It seems to me that the long curved white concrete area is a loading dock, with a view at the Potomac River.

Again, I'm sure that's not where RR indicated that he stood, in reality. He clearly indicated where he stood ""I was in South Parking, and I was at the east loading dock"".

The one at your spot, around the corner is clearly a recent, renovation-work 20 yards/meters long small access ramp into the building, where contractors can wheel in heavier equipment.
If he was at your location, he would had never say first, that he was in South Parking.
That far east last, round part of South Parking is 300 yards/meters away from your spot, and it is not the Lane One area. Ask Levi Stephenson.

(LT: today addition : Roosevelt Roberts ran to the border of South Loading's east loading dock, the border with the now named North Rotary Road in WetBlanky's non 9/11, but recent map.)

files.abovetopsecret.com... (a 2011 Google Earth image ! )



And we should also carefully listen to what Mr Levi Stephens told us, who walked to the South Entrance, after he had parked his car in that South Parking's Lane One area. And saw the same plane, AA 77, coming in his direction.
And combine his Lane One statement with that of Roosevelt Roberts. Then we have two experienced Pentagon workers, who both identically name the same far western parking area, as Lane One.

Both witnesses reports, btw, will be very difficult to interpret when trying to make a disparage between a SoC and a NoC description for the flight path they both saw.
Only when we ever get a chance to video-tape them both, while they are drawing a line on a birds-eye-view picture of the area, and preferably standing beside them on the exact spots where they both observed that plane flying towards the Pentagon's West wall.

WetBlanky, you used a much more recent than pre-9-11-2001 Pentagon parking map.
That's the misguiding in place.
And R.Roberts could thus have never said what he said in his Library Of Congress interview, the very first one after 9/11, because in the spot you place him, it is utterly impossible that he could have ever seen all that what he described in that interview. (see my bolded words in my excerpts from that interview in the above quotes from my page 3 PfT thread)

It would be nice and honest to admit you were wrong. No problem, everyone can make one mistake. But not too many.
Like f.ex. an over-fly. That has cost you your reputation of thorough researcher.

Hi LapTop,

I understand everyone wants to put in their 2 cents and feel like they solved 9/11 from behind their laptop, but CIT has pretty much exposed what happened. The plane flew north of the Citgo, therefore had to flyover the pentagon. Roosevelt, who was on the other side of the pentagon, saw a low flying commercial airliner 50-100 ft alt, just above the light poles, flying around the parking lot, above the parking lot, flying east toward dc banking out to the mall side, looking like pilot that missed his landing zone target.

Here is a nice clear shot of East Loading Dock a few months before 9/11.


Source: metro.pentagon.mil...

reply to post by WetBlanky

There are more than a few holes in the CIT flyover theory. In general, we are expected to believe that a complex multi-stage plan, with hundreds to thousands of participants, was executed with split second timing and without any leaks from a Government that can't even hand out water after a hurricane.
Then we are insulted with the duck-and-cover explanation coupled with no radar returns from a flyaway aircraft. Suddenly aircraft parts are raining down on the lawn, light poles fall over, a tree top is trimmed, and witnesses corroborate the flight path and impact. CIT says planted evidence. CIT's own NOC claimants say that there was an impact. CIT says that they are guessing about the impact because they somehow didn't notice it and therefore only the flight path guesses are accepted into evidence.
Next we have the problem of the fuel explosion and fire. The initial explosion was estimated to be1500-2000 gallons of fuel. That would be 300 to 400 five gallon cans of diesel fuel casually placed in some strategic location that has also not been named. Then, all have to be arranged somehow and charges placed to provide the proper effect. We must believe that no one notices the fuel and no one in a military facility recognizes demolition charges or detonators. We are asked to accept that workers would not be nervous with such a setup and would casually go about their business. No plausible theory of how that amount of fuel was secretly placed or what the arrangement of fuel and demolitions was has been provided. One would expect that anyone who came up with the flyover theory would at least theorize about the details before publishing it. The underwhelming CIT organization didn't bother because apparently, they didn't know how.
All we ever got was "An airplane flew over just as a bomb went off and nobody noticed it flying away because they were all to busy ducking and hiding ther eyes. Then the passengers were murdered and their bodies secretly placed along with tons of airplane parts and other debris designed to end up with the exact same result as flying an airplane into the Pentagon. Anything that doesn't support this fine theory is part of the plot." When we ask how and why this was done, we get answers with a high noise-to-signal ratio.
It is obvious that Ranke hasn't a clue about any of this and has theorized himself into a corner that he can't escape from without giving up income and minor celebrity among the fringe elements. One of the many thinigs he doesn't understand is that all military planners try to minimize moving parts in equipment and in military plans. If there is more than one moving part, it will likely fail at some time or another. NASA engineers simply got Newtons and pounds thrust confused on a Mars probe in 1999 and vaporized it in the Martian atmosphere. One piece of equipment that always worked in military service was a P38 can opener, a small stamped metal tool that came in rations cases. It had one moving part; the blade that folded out. It was kept on one's dog-tag chain so it wouldn't get lost. Of course, it had a tendency to open up and surprise the wearer should he roll over on it while sleeping. Even one moving part can get you.
The flyover theory has way too many moving parts and it doesn't accomplish anything more than a plane hitting the Pentagon other than to remove all the chances for detection of a plot.

A plan so contrived that it looks like it was scripted by the Three Stooges probably was. [Is there a third member of CIT?]

Originally posted by WetBlanky
Hi LapTop,

I understand everyone wants to put in their 2 cents and feel like they solved 9/11 from behind their laptop, but CIT has pretty much exposed what happened. The plane flew north of the Citgo, therefore had to flyover the pentagon. Roosevelt, who was on the other side of the pentagon, saw a low flying commercial airliner 50-100 ft alt, just above the light poles, flying around the parking lot, above the parking lot, flying east toward dc banking out to the mall side, looking like pilot that missed his landing zone target.

Here is a nice clear shot of East Loading Dock a few months before 9/11.

Source: metro.pentagon.mil...

I advice you to look at my second picture in my above last post, and the text under it, again.
Roosevelt must have radar-eyes to see all that he described in the LoC interview.

And do you really believe that a plane flying above stall speed, can make such an aerobatic turn, so that it turns up in RR view, flying low over the light poles on the side of South parking, flying southwest again, thus back again to where it came from? He said he saw it cross Route 27. That's impossible to see from your East Loading spot.

I have a picture with added text which makes it totally clear that what you guys propose, solely based on RR misinterpreted words, is impossible. But it is 1.03 MB, and the ATS upload facility is now not allowing more than 500 KB, while they say "unrestricted" upload.
I'll try to upload it later.

Pteridine,

There's no point in hearing what you have to say. Your agenda here is to Dow play and make it just seem like a theory. It's clear you are invested in making sure people don't look a this evidence. Thank God you are irrelevant and ineffective at your cover up job.

Laptop,

The LoC interview was edited.
z3.invisionfree.com...
Likely to confuse people like you and to make it seem he was at south loading dock when he saw the plane. He wasn't. It was clarified with CIT.

Move on. Do something productive for 9/11 truth. We're all tired of your long, boring, "wait, listen to my theory!" convoluted posts.

The north side flight path proves a flyover. It proves staging of light poles. It proves an inside job. Focus on that instead of being the online pentagon attack guru.

Originally posted by WetBlanky

The LoC interview was edited.
z3.invisionfree.com...
Likely to confuse people like you and to make it seem he was at south loading dock when he saw the plane. He wasn't. It was clarified with CIT.

LMAO...! SO that's your tact now? You don't like what someone says so you claim the interview was edited? You find some anomaly and use that as a evidence?

LMAO again...! Well, why don;'t you just trot that "evidence" right on down to the Attorney General's office and present it as the LATEST smoking gun of 9/11!

Honestly...you people are the funniest things on the internet. I swear. Thank you.

Originally posted by WetBlanky
The north side flight path proves a flyover. It proves staging of light poles. It proves an inside job. Focus on that instead of being the online pentagon attack guru.

I think this is the entire point everyone here is making. It really isn't the case you're looking at the evidence to flesh out a scenario. You're trying to insist a given scenario is true so you're going backwards and dishonestly cherry picking your facts that support it. You WANT there to be an inside job, so you WANT the light pole to be staged, so you WANT the fly over stories to be true. One guy seeing something that kinda sorta conforms to what you want to believe MUST be right and the hundred other eyewitnesses seeing explicit clear cut events that refute what you want to believe MUST be wrong. I doubt very much to the point where "I'd put money on it" that not even your own witness believes your cartoonish flyover claim.

I do thank you for revealing your true agenda, at least.

Originally posted by WetBlanky

Move on. Do something productive for 9/11 truth. We're all tired of your long, boring, "wait, listen to my theory!" convoluted posts.

Tired after only 4 days? That's how long you have been a member here...and only posted in a no-planer thread. 14 posts all in support of CIT. Bob, isn't your drawer empty of socks yet?

So all the dozen NoC witnesses are lying?

ATTENTION!!!!!

This forum is dedicated to the discussion and speculation of cover-ups, scandals, and other conspiracies surrounding the events of 9/11/2001. Participants should be aware that this forum is under close staff scrutiny due to general rudeness by some. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.

Failure to heed the above advice can and will result in post removals, temporary posting bans or the thread closure.

This is the only warning that will be given.

Originally posted by ATH911
So all the dozen NoC witnesses are lying?

Why do you people always always *always* bring up this "lying" meme? No, they don't have to by lying...they can be mistaken! It has been pointed out multiple times before Lagasse even referenced the wrong gas pump he was at.

Not to mention some of the "dozen" you people always claim as "NOC witnesses are *not" NOC witnesses because they did not or could not or were not in any position to definitively see any sort of NOC path (Morin could not see the Citgo, so he is not one, Paik could not see the Citgo, as the most obvious).

I know obfuscation, leading-questions, convoluted reasoning, ignoring of certain facts and statements and twisted interpretations are all part of the CIT Interview Kitbag, but no...these people do not need to be "lying". They are mistaken.

Originally posted by WetBlanky
Pteridine,

There's no point in hearing what you have to say. Your agenda here is to Dow play and make it just seem like a theory. It's clear you are invested in making sure people don't look a this evidence. Thank God you are irrelevant and ineffective at your cover up job.

There is no point in hearing what CIT has to say. Their theory [it is only a theory] is contrived and not well thought out. The "evidence" consists entirely of people making estimates of a flight path. When the flight path is what is desired, it is accepted. If it isn't, the witness is ignored. The same witness can have statements selectively accepted while information that conflicts with the theory is ignored. Those that guess at a NOC path and also say the plane hit the Pentagon find that the flight path statement is accepted but that the statement about the impact is ignored. As has been mentioned above, the theory is assumed to be correct and anything that supports it is accepted while anything that contradicts it is rejected. Plane parts and light poes are claimed to be planted, but of course no theory is advanced regarding instantaneous planting. Explosives were to have been used along with at least 1500 gallons of jet fuel but no theory has been advanced to explain how this was done.

Your agenda here is to pretend that this is more than just a theory. You are not effective in doing so and are unable to respond to the most basic criticisms of the theory, which is why you don't want to hear those embarrasing questions.
There is no evidence for a flyover. There is no evidence of demolition. Ranke would not know how to make a logical argument if his life depended on it.