Why does CIT have NO eyewitnesses to a flyover?

Originally posted by jthomas

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?

How can you possibly call it a "theory"!!

They trust the witness statements, that the plane approached NOC. Full stop.

So do I.

And so should you. At least you should if you're a honest man; as there exist
absolutely no logical tangible valid reason to cast aspersions on these ordinary
average broad general all-round people, who are just like the rest of us, and certainly very much just like yourself, jthomas!
They are people who got absolutely no reason to lie, and got absolutely nothing to gain
from being dishonest in any way.

It seems to me, jthomas, that the only reason you're casting aspersions upon these
witnesses, witnesses you know nothing about personally, would be because you got
ulterior motives. There can be no other explanations. And that would again indicate that
you are not really a honest person to deal with - does it not!!

You keep repeating over and bloody over and over again, tediously, infinitely boringly,
that the witnesses saw or thought they saw the plane impact the building!

But for heavens sake! you, I, CIT, and a billion other people would probably have come
to the same conclusion, or same assumption, or same belief, same conjecture,
presumption, inference, supposition, postulation etc. etc. as the witnesses came to, if
we had been in the same locations all the witnesses were in.
And naturally so, especially if that was what the media told you over and over, again and again, had "indeed" happened!
It is logic for caged chooks we are talking about here, jthomas!

Wake up, dear fellow. You're walking on very thin ice, and you're getting heavier and
heavier by the hour! - in stark contrast to us who want to know the TRUTH, and in our
endeavour, of course, are feeling lighter and lighter by the day.

Join us, and you'll feel that heavy burden of slander, aspersions, spin, fibs, boredom ad
nauseum, hostility, acid sarcasm, etc. etc., you're carrying around, disappear like dew does for the sun!

The evil you're protecting have slaughtered hundred of thousands of people. Amongst
them countless women and children. They have splitted up families and made millions
homeless. They have with wild abandon caused immense destruction of that which
through many many years laborioushly has been built up. They have caused the death
of at least 4200 of their own citizens with many more young and injured, scarred for life.
And all this horrible misery for no GOOD reason. Repeat: for no GOOD reason.
All this horrendous misery and unimaginable suffering, caused by nothing else but lies
and fabrications!
Leave this evil alone, lest you become its servant!





PS!
Thanks MOD for fixing my 'quoting' problems!
How can I do it myself if a 'next time' comes up??
Yes, I'm less than an amateur with regards to this!






[edit on 21-11-2008 by djeminy]

Originally posted by djeminy

How can you possibly call it a "theory"!!

They trust the witness statements, that the plane approached NOC. Full stop.

So do I.

Then you you agree with CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth that every one of CIT's eyewitnesses either saw a jet hit the Pentagon, or believed a jet hit the Pentagon, and NONE ever claimed to see any jet fly over or away from the Pentagon.

How is it casting "aspersions" on what the eyewitnesses actually saw or believe?

So, yes, of course, CIT has only a theory and has yet to produce any positive, verifiable eyewitness or media a report of any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon. Without the verifiable evidence that a flyover actually took place, it remains only a "theory."

Why are you so confused by these simple facts?



[edit on 22-11-2008 by jthomas]

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by djeminy

How can you possibly call it a "theory"!!

They trust the witness statements, that the plane approached NOC. Full stop.

So do I.

Then you you agree with CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth that every one of CIT's eyewitnesses either saw a jet hit the Pentagon, or believed a jet hit the Pentagon, and NONE ever claimed to see any jet fly over or away from the Pentagon.

How is it casting "aspersions" on what the eyewitnesses actually saw or believe?

So, yes, of course, CIT has only a theory and has yet to produce any positive, verifiable eyewitness or media a report of any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon. Without the verifiable evidence that a flyover actually took place, it remains only a "theory."

Why are you so confused by these simple facts?

My heart bleeds for you, dear old chap. You are truly sinking.

And you're undoubtedly the most dishonest 'character' in this forum.


"You keep repeating over and bloody over and over again, tediously, infinitely boringly,
that the witnesses saw or thought they saw the plane impact the building!

But for heavens sake! you, I, CIT, and a billion other people would probably have come
to the same conclusion, or same assumption, or same belief, same conjecture,
presumption, inference, supposition, postulation etc. etc. as the witnesses came to, if
we had been in the same locations all the witnesses were in.
And naturally so, especially if that was what the media told you over and over, again and again, had "indeed" happened!
It is logic for caged chooks we are talking about here, jthomas!"


Has it ever occurred to you that the witnesses might even have "seen", or thought
that they had "seen" the plane actually hit the top floor!!

At no time did they ever state "where" they thought the plane hit, did they? - jthomas!

You have wasted not only our time and energi, but also your own over a long period of
time, and for no good reason at all.


IT IS LOGIC FOR CAGED CHOOKS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE - JTHOMAS!


That you still don't get it, would make you a little bit less than these unhappy creatures
- wouldn't it, poor fellow!





.


[edit on 22-11-2008 by djeminy]

reply to post by djeminy


djeminy,

You do not dissemble well and are just hand-waving and mumbling nonsense.

The fact remains that CIT's theory requires that the jet fly low and fast over and away from the Pentagon very much like this 757:



You cannot deny that a low, high-speed flyover presents a large visible and very loud jet flying over and near a large number of human beings. You cannot tell us that they would not see or hear such an event.

ALL of CIT's eyewitnesses either saw or believe a jet hit the Pentagon. How many times does that have to be repeated before you understand that both CIT and P4T claim that in P4T's animation?!

Until and unless ANY positive, verifiable eyewitness, media, or physical evidence is produced that a jet actually flew over and away from the Pentagon, there is absolutely no reason any rational person would accept CIT's theory.

It is very telling how everyone gets upset when you should want CIT to provide that evidence.


[edit on 23-11-2008 by jthomas]


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/27/2008 by Hal9000]

Day 4.

No one has yet produced positive, verified eyewitness, media, or physical evidence that ANY jet flew over and away from the Pentagon.

Nothing from CIT or Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Having acknowledged that all of its eyewitnesses either saw a jet hit the Pentagon, or believe it did, CIT cannot demonstrate any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon.

A citizens investigation of more than two years and no evidence? Why would CIT want anyone to believe a jet flew over and away from the Pentagon when it cannot and will not produce any evidence for one?

Are you going to just accept what CIT tells you and not demand that they back up its claims of a flyover with evidence?

You are loosing your sanity jthomas, dear chap.

Take a long break or seek help.

Your repetitious rants are becoming intolerable and unbearable 'garbage'!

Thanking you in anticipation.

Wish you all the best.

cheers

Originally posted by jthomas
Day 4.

No one has yet produced positive, verified eyewitness, media, or physical evidence that ANY jet flew over and away from the Pentagon.

Yes we have and as long as you keep repeating this false accusation I will keep repeating the evidence.

Besides the fact that we provide 13 witnesses who unanimously and independently place the plane on the north side of the gas station which proves a flyover....

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

Google Video Link

But beyond that we have 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.

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.

The 2nd plane cover story:

Google Video Link

Keep spamming your question and I'll keep spamming the answer!


[edit on 23-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by djeminy

All the best.

cheers

So another 9/11 Denier can't provide the evidence. I already knew that.

Ta ta.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by jthomas
Day 4.

No one has yet produced positive, verified eyewitness, media, or physical evidence that ANY jet flew over and away from the Pentagon.

Yes we have and as long as you keep repeating this false accusation I will keep repeating the evidence.

No you haven't.

Besides the fact that we provide 13 witnesses who unanimously and independently place the plane on the north side of the gas station which proves a flyover....

No, it doesn't prove a flyover. They all stated they either saw a jet hit the Pentagon or believe a jet hit the Pentagon. CIT and P4T have already admitted it in P4T's latest animation:

"Although all of these witnesses believe the aircraft impacted the building,..."
9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON - Official Release - Pilots For 9/11 Truth
video.google.com...
Starting at 38:23

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

We did: www.veoh.com...

If Roberts had actually seen a flyover, then you are even in a worse position since there would be scores and scores of corroborating eyewitnesses. But there are none. Zero. Nada.

The question on the table is obvious, Craig. Why are you so afraid to provide eyewitnesses to a flyover???

But beyond that we have suspect witnesses who report an alleged "2nd plane" as flying away from the Pentagon IMMEDIATELY after the explosion.

The C-130 is not the jet you claimed flew low and fast over the Pentagon. Remember when you stated:

www.thepentacon.com...
"That's because Keith Wheelhouse will eventually confirm it as a C-130."

"USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning.

It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away.

"My first thought was hes not going to make it across the river to [Reagan] National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction," Sucherman said. "It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle--almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course."

...

"Off to the west, Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, were toast."

So, Joel Sucherman saw AA77 hit the Pentagon, then saw another plane "off to the west." So he did not witness a jet fly over and away from the Pentagon and definitely saw AA77 hit the Pentagon.


Craig, please provide readers here with positive, verifiable that any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon. Everyone is tired of your evasions.


[edit on 23-11-2008 by jthomas]

Originally posted by jthomas



Craig, please provide readers here with positive, verifiable that any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon. Everyone is tired of your evasions.

Besides the fact that we provide 13 witnesses who unanimously and independently place the plane on the north side of the gas station which proves a flyover....

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

Google Video Link

But beyond that we have 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.

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.

The 2nd plane cover story:

Google Video Link

Keep spamming your question and I'll keep spamming the answer!

Originally posted by jthomas


No you haven't.

Yes we have.

No, it doesn't prove a flyover. They all stated they either saw a jet hit the Pentagon or believe a jet hit the Pentagon. CIT and P4T have already admitted it in P4T's latest animation:

The north side approach proves the plane did not hit because this is impossible.

Do you agree that if a north side approach in general, as independently reported by 13 witnesses, is accurate that it proves a flyover?

If Roberts had actually seen a flyover, then you are even in a worse position since there would be scores and scores of corroborating eyewitnesses. But there are none. Zero. Nada.

Have you interviewed everyone who was there?

Have you interviewed ANYONE who was there?

Didn't think so.

This means that you have NO IDEA what ANYONE who was there saw.

Why are you choosing to speak for them?

The C-130 is not the jet you claimed flew low and fast over the Pentagon. Remember when you stated:

Yep.

Maybe you're starting to get it.

The C-130 was not in the area at the time of the explosion as confirmed by the pilot Lt Col Steve O'Brien.

This means the "2nd plane" that Wheelhouse and Sucherman talked about that was there DURING the attack could not have been the C-130 and could only have been the flyover.

You're catching on!

Good job!


...

Craig, please provide readers here with positive, verifiable that any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon. Everyone is tired of your evasions.

Stop spamming the question that I keep answering.

You sound like a bot.

[edit on 23-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Have you interviewed everyone who was there?

Have you interviewed ANYONE who was there?

Didn't think so.

This means that you have NO IDEA what ANYONE who was there saw.

Why are you choosing to speak for them?

So your video interviews are what? Fairy tales?

The C-130 was not in the area at the time of the explosion as confirmed by the pilot Lt Col Steve O'Brien.

This means the "2nd plane" that Wheelhouse and Sucherman talked about that was there DURING the attack could not have been the C-130 and could only have been the flyover.

You confirmed what Wheelhose saw was the C-130.

And Sucherman saw AA77 hit the Pentagon.

"USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning.

It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away.

"My first thought was hes not going to make it across the river to [Reagan] National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction," Sucherman said. "It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle--almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course."

End of story.

reply to post by jthomas


Sucherman does not identify it as the C-130 and claims it was there immediately (with 3 to 5 seconds) after the explosion.

Wheelhouse claims it was flying with or "SHADOWING" AA77!

Because of this we know that they are not talking about the C-130 which, as confirmed by the Tribby video was not in the airspace until 3 minutes (that's 180 seconds, not 3) AFTER the explosion.

Because this, and because of Roosevelt Robert Jr. flyaway testimony, and because of the incredible amount of north side evidence we have presented plenty enough proof that the plane flew over the building.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by jthomas

 

Sucherman does not identify it as the C-130 and claims it was there immediately (with 3 to 5 seconds) after the explosion.

Sucherman saw AA77 hit the Pentagon. He did not see any jet fly low and fast over and away from the Pentagon as you claim.

You have nothing, Craig. Stop spamming and either do a proper investigation or fold up shop.

Day 5.

No one has yet produced positive, verified eyewitness, media, or physical evidence that ANY jet flew over and away from the Pentagon.

CIT's Craig Ranke says he will continue to spam ATS threads in an effort to change the subject instead of providing eyewitnesses.

Meanwhile,14 Pentagon eyewitness accounts on video



[edit on 24-11-2008 by jthomas]

Originally posted by jthomas
Day 5.

No one has yet produced positive, verified eyewitness, media, or physical evidence that ANY jet flew over and away from the Pentagon.

Day 5.

Previous evidence submitted has been ignored by thread author as he continues to lie regarding what has been presented and badger me for the answer to a question that has been previously answered.

Besides the fact that we provide 13 witnesses who unanimously and independently place the plane on the north side of the gas station which proves a flyover....

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

Google Video Link

But beyond that we have 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.

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.

The 2nd plane cover story:

Google Video Link

Addressed and debunked.

Spam and trolling noted for the record.

Day 8

No one has yet produced positive, verified eyewitness, media, or physical evidence that ANY jet flew over and away from the Pentagon.

In the latest news, CIT has gotten tangled up on which of Roosevelt Roberts's accounts to accept. Faced that they contradict each other, and neither demonstrates a flyover actually took place, CIT is trying to hide the fact from the 9/11 Truth community.

It's just more proof that CIT has absolutely NO evidence or eyewitness reports of any jet flying over an away from the Pentagon.

CIT will probably fold operations by the end of the year if not sooner.







[edit on 26-11-2008 by jthomas]

Day 8.

Previous evidence submitted has been ignored by thread author as he continues to lie regarding what has been presented and badger me for the answer to a question that has been previously answered.

The 2 accounts of the first critical flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts Jr. are not the least bit contradictory in any way whatsoever which is why jthomas refuses to quote him and point out how.

So never forget the evidence that is ignored, dismissed, and completely unaddressed by jthomas:

Besides the fact that we provide 13 witnesses who unanimously and independently place the plane on the north side of the gas station which proves a flyover....

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

Google Video Link

But beyond that we have 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.

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.

The 2nd plane cover story:

Google Video Link

Originally posted by jthomas


CIT will probably fold operations by the end of the year if not sooner.

I just caught that.

Expect big things from CIT in 2009.

Consider that a hint of much more to come.