CIT - flyover theory - RIP

From the OpEd article:
Independent Investigation into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information, Garners Wide-Ranging Endorsements
"The eyewitnesses in all of the most critical vantage points, on the other hand, independently, unanimously, and unequivocally report a drastically different flight path, proving that the plane absolutely could not have hit the light poles or the building."

The underlined part of this statement is not true.

At 14:37 in this video, P4T establishes the north flight path into the Pentagon is aerodynamically possible.

The witnesses prove the light poles were staged but they do not prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

In fact, they prove just the opposite. The witnesses at the Citgo station: Sgt. Brooks and Sgt. Lagasse saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Robert Turcios had an unobstructed view of all but the bottom floor. He said the plane was on "a direct line to go into the Pentagon" and it "collided". When Craig asked him if the plane flew over the Pentagon he said "no". Sean Boger was in the Pentagon heliport control tower. He saw the plane hit the Pentagon. The other CIT witnesses could not see the Pentagon.

There are NO witnesses who said they saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.
Roosevelt Roberts saw a plane flying away to the south-west.
As the P4T video shows, the "hijacked" plane approaching from the west could only turn to the south-east.

CIT's investigation proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did not fly where the government said it did, but they went a bridge too far.

CIT selectively chose what they wanted to believe and not believe.

All the CIT witnesses

All the CIT witnesses who could see the Pentagon independently, unanimously, and unequivocally said the plane hit the Pentagon. If you believe the witnesses then you believe the plane flew north of the Citgo station and hit the pentagon.

We will not know for sure what happened until there is a real investigation. But the flyover theory is kaput.

See for yourself

Before reading the comments, check out the links and evaluate the evidence for yourself.
I have a tendency to be too brief. I will now spell it out in a series of posts so each falsehood can be evaluated separately.

All this repetition is meant to mislead the viewer into believing there were no south flight path witnesses. That's what I thought after viewing National Security Alert. What did you think?
Leading people to believe something that is not true is the same as telling a lie

"In the final seconds before the alleged impact, a plane on the officially required flight path would have flown south of Columbia pike, south of the Navy Annex and south of the of the former Citgo gas station at all times.
As it turned out, the eyewitnesses reported the complete opposite."

This is sophisticated sophistry. Plant the seed "the eyewitnesses reported the complete opposite" without any qualification and repeat many times with minor with qualifications but never mention the existence of the south path witnesses. The viewer is misled into thinking there were no south side witnesses. Most people don't take the time to check out the details, they trust the presenter is telling them the truth. In this case, that was a mistake.

"Thirteen eyewitnesses from the five most critical vantage points unanimously confirmed the plane crossed to the north side of Columbia Pike, flew directly over the Navy Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station."

"The reason the exact location of the downed light poles and taxi cab is so important is because it establishes the required location and trajectory of the plane down to the foot."

He continues to talk about the poles on the bridge for a full minute, then a subtle location shift before saying "all the known witnesses".

"In this image from 9/11, both poles are downed. These 2 poles on the bridge in particular are the most important of the five because they were the furthest south, making it physically impossible for them to be downed by any type of aircraft at all approaching from the north side of the gas station as reported by all the known witnesses in this critical area."

This clever use of words left me thinking the "critical area" meant the bridge. This is not by chance. This is professional sophistry.

"There is no room for error in the official flight path at all. So these critical details should have been easily confirmed by the witnesses. But as you are about to see for yourself. they independently and unanimously reported the opposite."

"Robert's general placement of the plane on the north side has been proven to be factually accurate with corroboration from all other known witnesses at the station that day."

"It should be noted that there is not a single witness on the station's property, or anywhere in the near vicinity, who contradicts them."

The reason given is that only the people who were interviewed by CIT are valid and the ones they interviewed who disagreed with them are government agents so they don't count. CIT decided what we should be told based on their opinion of what was valid and what was not. I would like to have all the information so I can decide for myself what is valid and what is not.

No witnesses for flyover

Truth News Radio Australia features Craig Ranke of CIT
"Even though we have Roosevelt Roberts' and Erik Dihle's testimony in favor of flyover"

Roosevelt Roberts is NOT witness for flyover. He describes a plane flying away to the south-west. Craig insists that he said it flew away to the north. Roosevelt was driving and he had trouble understanding the questions so the information is disjointed. Please read the text and decide for yourself what Roosevelt said.

Purple dots into the red dots indicate the path Roosevelt said the plane took. The red dots indicate the turn the plane approaching from the west would have to make. Craig has the plane flying the reverse of what I have indicated. The "hijacked" plane approaching from the west could not have made either turn. The plane Roosevelt saw could not be the "hijacked" plane.

Image Hosted by

* * * * *

Eric was in the Arlington National Cemetery when he overheard conflicting reports. It is not known what the people he heard shouting actually saw and no assumptions should be made. This would not be acceptable in a court of law and should not be represented as evidence for flyover.

CIT misrepresented this second hand account by including the person who thought the plane kept going and left out the part where someone said the plane hit the building.
“The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn’t even tell . . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going . . . somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building."

Obfuscated and never acknowledged

Robert Turcios worked at the Citgo station. He had a clear view of all but the bottom floors of the Pentagon. If the plane flew over the Pentagon he would have seen it.
This is the National Security Alert version of his statement with the deleted part included.

Robert : It was so kinda quick maybe 2 seconds when I saw it shoot down here, and I tried to follow it, and I saw it lift up a little bit [instant replay] and I saw it lift up a little bit.
to get over . . . to the side of the bridge here . . where you see the do not enter sign.
Craig: So it flew up to go over that?
Robert: Yes
Craig: OK
Cut to graphics
Robert: My view was, I could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon. All I saw was it headed straight to it and then the big explosion, just a fireball and lots of smoke.
Craig: OK, Did you see it ac . . . You didn't see it hit the Pentagon?

Changed from a positive question to a negative one mid sentence, reinforcing didn't hit. Had he asked "Did you actually see it hit the Pentagon" he would have gotten the explanation which would be something like "It flew straight into the Pentagon at the bottom but my view of that part was obstructed."

Robert: No, The view was obstructed still and I could only see the fire ball from the explosion.
Craig: Did you see it hit any light poles?
Robert: No, I may have missed that. I just saw it pick up, . . [instant replay] I just saw it pick up.
Cut to graphics
Robert: Just to make . . .
Craig: You saw it pick up to miss that.
Robert: Yea
Craig: Rather than hit any light poles.

This part is cut out of the NSA video

Craig: Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?
Robert: Fly over the Pentagon??? [He was surprised anyone would ask that question]
No, the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon. Coli. .
[interrupts] OK, you didn't see it then?
[while Craig is talking] Collided.
Robert: No, I did not.
Craig: Cause there was other planes as well. [move on to something else]

Net result:
Robert saw the plane fly straight into the Pentagon but this is superbly obfuscated and never acknowledged.

Then Craig has the chutzpah to say:
ALL of the north side witnesses were deceived into believing the plane hit.

Show "Your quote of Robert Turcios" by Adam Syed

Sgt. Chadwick Brooks

Starting at 36:00 of this video:

Sgt. Brooks: Correct, It was descending. By that time it had already been descending. But basically going in a straight line . . . a straight line toward the Pentagon. By then it was actually in route and it was a straight line.

Sgt. Brooks: As you can see that's the impact point, and as you can see right now, anybody standing in this current location where I'm at, can actually see that, uh, straight on right there. There's nothing blocking, there was actually nothing blocking at the time. So there was a straight shot.

Craig: When you were standing right here looking toward the Pentagon and you saw the plane in a rapid descent past the station on the north side of the station, what did you see?

Sgt. Brooks: Ok what I'd seen then was the plane going directly in front of the building and what seemed to be a quick second we just seen a 'boom', and everything just, a great ball of fire just go straight up in the air. And it just, right on the impact. Just a great ball of fire.

Craig: Were you actually able to literally . . visual . . actually see the plane hit the building?

Sgt. Brooks: Correct, from this location, where I'm standing right now, directly turning around and watching that plane literally go into…the Pentagon which is currently located over there...directly.

To borrow a quote from Craig:
"A ridiculous and virtually impossible mistake for anyone to make, let alone a federal officer who is professionally trained to observe and report."

Sgt. William Lagasse

Same video:

Craig: Did you see the plane hit the building?
Sgt. Lagasse: Yes.
Did I see what the plane did? No, there was a big fire ball.
When the plane hit it just kinda disappeared. Like I said, it made that little yaw movement, and then it just disappeared.

Craig: Did you see the plane pick up at all maybe to make it over anything before it went back down again.

Sgt. Lagasse: No.

Craig: You didn't see it pick up at all. OK.

Sgt Lagasse: That's it. You can pick apart everything else because I don't have the specifics on speed and altitude, those are my best estimates.

the boldface game once again

Your bolding:

Craig: Did you see the plane hit the building?
Sgt. Lagasse: Yes.
Did I see what the plane did? No, there was a big fire ball.

My bolding:

Craig: Did you see the plane hit the building?
Sgt. Lagasse: Yes. Did I see what the plane did? No, there was a big fire ball.

He then proceeds to say:

When the plane hit it just kinda disappeared. Like I said, it made that little yaw movement, and then it just disappeared.

Planes don't disappear when they crash. They leave lots of wreckage, as the upcoming test crash will show.

I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Disappear is a figure of speech

Do you think Sgt. Lagasse and the others are lying or delusional?

Do you really think they did not see the plane hit the Pentagon?

This is a JREF denial mantra:

"I can't figure out how it happened, therefore, it did not happen."

We will not know exactly what happened until there is a real investigation.

A real investigation reveals all the evidence, not just that which supports a chosen theory.
Defense lawyers only have to present the evidence that helps their case.

Craig and Aldo are are NOT investigators, they are lawyers for the defense of their flyover theory.

Show "Not so fast." by keymanwst

No evidence of flyover either

The plane at the Pentagon is problematic by design.

CIT claims to have proof of flyover but they do not.

I am not going to try to explain what happened, that is for another thread.

The point here is that CIT misstated their evidence and ignored what their own witnesses said.

They attack anyone who disagrees with them and that has led to a lot of bad feelings and division in the Truth Movement. Their enemies list is over the top, something I would expect from Rush Limbaugh.

When people think for themselves there will be disagreements. This is a strength not a weakness until we start verbally assaulting those who disagree with us.

That which does not kill us makes us stronger. The benefit of all this for me has been the recognition that I am also guilty of name calling. From now on I will try to keep the level of discourse more respectful. [although I am not above a little sarcasm now and again]

If we do not hang together, we will surely hang separately.
Keep in mind that if we loose, they will kill us.

Show "I'm duplicating this response (with some edit)" by Adam Syed


"CIT maintains that ALL of their witnesses believe the plane hit, because this was a military deception"

It is very hard not to be sarcastic when faced with such a remark. Three witnesses SAW the plane hit the Pentagon, a forth said it was on a direct line into the Pentagon and it "collided". He also said the plane did NOT fly over the Pentagon.

Pray tell, Mr. Syed, how did the military deceive them? Holograms? Remote mind control?

Please justify this statement or withdraw it.

Show "Pray, where is the wreckage?" by Adam Syed

Self evident?

If "no plane" is self evident then what did CIT prove?

CIT claims that the north path proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon. It does not. P4T proved that it could. CIT's claim is false.

According to you, there was no plane regardless of approach, Is that right?

You did not say how the witnesses were deceived into thinking they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Please answer or retract the statement that they were "deceived".

Show "I've already answered this question." by Adam Syed

Get serious

They SAW the plane hit the Pentagon. Lagasse described how it went in at an angle. Brooks said he saw the whole thing. Turcios said it was on a direct line and it collided. They all saw it hit the bottom floors or drop BELOW their field of view. Turcios said it did NOT fly over. It doesn't get any more absolute than that.

If the plane had flown over the Pentagon they would all have seen it. They could not be "deceived" into thinking the plane hit the bottom floors if it had flown over. This is so silly, it rivals any denial BS put forth by the JREFers. Do you really expect anyone to believe the witnesses are that stupid?

And Craig wanted the Truth Movement to take this to Congress. That would have been the end of the Truth Movement. No one in their right mind would believe this crap. It is possible that they were coerced into saying what they said but there is no chance that they were deceived.

I hope you realize that by making and repeating this absurd claim that you have destroyed any credibility and respect you may have had left.


deleted and reposted at the bottom where the images won't be cropped

The proof is there are no plane parts

"That a plane did not crash into the Pentagon is self evident. The amount of debris is so minimal that it could maybe account for 0.001% of the photographed wreckage."

P4T demonstrated in a video that a plane on the north path could hit the Pentagon at the impact point, so north path doesn't prove flyover.
If the proof is: no plane parts = no plane, then north path/south path had nothing to do with it. The plane could have flown over the Pentagon on either path.

Show "Another flyover witness? Certainly a person of interest..." by Adam Syed

False assumption

"In light of the corroborating testimony from the first critical flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts Jr who was also in the south parking lot,"

Roosevelt Roberts said the plane flew away to the south-west. Craig insists he said the plane flew away to the north. It doesn't matter, the plane approaching from the west could not make either turn. Roosevelt is NOT a witness for flyover. The plane he described could not be the plane that approached from the west.

Show "You do realize" by Adam Syed

You continue to ignore this FACT

The plane Roosevelt described could NOT be the "hijacked" plane approaching from the west.

There is no corroboration of what he saw and the only thing can be said of his statement is that it does NOT support flyover.

Show "Illogic" by Adam Syed

Subject shift by atacking the messenger with strawman

"yet tries to insist that the plane hit as well. Who is really making the "absurd claim" here?"

You went wrong at "insist". I have clearly stated that that is a hypothesis. Your intentional misinterpretation and subsequent ballyhooing are disingenuous.

This is an attempt to shift the subject from CIT's failure to include the statements that the plane hit the Pentagon and therefore did NOT fly over the Pentagon, and the fact that they lied about Roosevelt Roberts being a witness for flyover when he clearly is not.

* * * * *

"All other CIT supporters AND DETRACTORS agree that a north path = flyover"

This is not true. Ed Asner, Sander Hicks, Kevin Barrett and Richard Gage did NOT endorse flyover as Craig deceptively implies.

David Ray Griffin specifically says:
"The film does not establish its related claim---that the airliner pulled up and flew over the Pentagon"

Peter Dale Scott said:
"I have not endorsed the flyover theory for Flight 77, and I do not personally believe it."

Show "Chris." by Adam Syed
Show "Your position" by Adam Syed
Show "Sorry, but" by Adam Syed



For those who are reading this thread

It should be noted, once again, that Chris Sarns differs from all the previous detractors of CIT in a very significant way.

ALL the previous detractors, the most prominent being Hoffman and Arabesque, attempt to dismiss the entire body of evidence CIT has uncovered, not just their conclusion.

They attempt to debunk the idea that the light poles were staged; for example Jim Hoffman:

They argue that the plane did indeed flew on the South of Citgo path as the official story requires.

Here' for example, is a screenshot of Arabesque's blog, the red underline mine.

And here's another:

When addressing the point that the North Path witnesses say they saw the plane hit the building, Arabesque and Hoffman suggest that because these people saw the plane hit the building, they must all be wrong about the North Path.

Hoffman argues that the 757 caused the directional damage inside the Pentagon, whereas you have agreed with CIT's (and many others') conclusion that the internal damage was caused by explosives.

Maybe this could help you understand why the previous CIT detractors, who used to show up almost immediately in any related thread to 'debunk' CIT's work, are leaving you in the cold to defend yourself here, rather than joining in the discussion to support you and refute me. They can see what you're doing and they know you're trying to defend the indefensible by having it both ways: on the one hand agreeing with all the evidence that the north path is true and that the light poles and directional damage in the building was staged, and on the other hand trying to shout down the flyover conclusion as nuts while denouncing Craig and Aldo as con men. You can not have it both ways Chris.

In a backhanded sense though, your being on the scene to "discredit" CIT is in many ways the best thing to happen to them. Since you've shown up with your North of Citgo Impact Theory (R)(C)(TM), every single other CIT detractor has vanished into the shadows. You've done more to "vanquish" CIT's "enemies" more than I could have ever hoped to do.
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Bravo Adam!

Adam has made is abundantly clear that to admit that the plane flew north side is to admit to flyover. The plane had to go somewhere and it sure didn't burrow UNDER the Pentagon, so what does that leave? It flew over.

Plus Roosevelt Roberts, Pentagon Police Officer, and DeWitt Roseborough saw the plane over the south parking lot, proving flyover. Also, Lloyde England's wife agreed with Craig Ranke, on camera, that the plane kept on going. And Eric Diehle reported that his coworkers, who witnessed the event, reported that "a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going."

Chris, you are fighting a losing battle against logic and reason.

Wow, I'd forgotten about that!

Actually, Lloyde England's wife Shirley doesn't agree "on camera" that the plane kept on going, she agrees with this while the audio recorder is secretly recording. Interesting what kind of truths people can agree on when they think they're not being recorded! This was at the 36:00 mark of Lloyde England & His Taxi Cab - The Eye of the Storm.

Craig Says:

To which Shirley replies:

To which a surprised Craig replies:

To which Shirley replies:

Thanks, Sheila, for the kind comments and for reminding me of this.
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Shirley England was with the FBI at the time

She may still be..I don't know.

Yes, agreed, the camera caught just the audio for that conversation between Shirley and Craig Ranke.

Shirley also says, perhaps in the same conversation, that she knows why her husband's car was not taken in as evidence. But she would not reveal that reason.

Odd, isn't it, it's the crime of the century and a key pc of evidence is not impounded? Unless of course they hoped to skirt around the anomalous damage to the car, ie, the neat surgical hole in the windshield and not even a scratch on the hood.

You did not read the original post or the follow up explanation

Roosevelt's statement does not support the "north flight path = flyover" theory.

Erik Dihle is not a witness for anything. He overheard conflicting reports.

Dewitt Roseborough
He is describing the plane approaching from the west. He heard the plane overhead and THEN it hit the pentagon. He did NOT see a plane after the explosion.

"I got out into the parking lot, just walking along, and all of a sudden, I hear what I would describe as a 'lion's roar' above my head," Roseborough said.
"It caught my attention, and as I looked up, I heard another roar and I saw this airplane flying low. I thought, 'Oh, my God, this thing is really low.'
"I thought it was going to crash onto the highway," recalled Roseborough. "Just as I thought that, I saw a fireball come from over the Pentagon. I was just standing there dumbfounded, thinking, 'What just happened?'"